Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

GLASGOW BOUNDARIES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Glasgow Boundaries," presented by Mr. Elliot; read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 8th December, and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

STEEL WORKS, JARROW.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state the position with regard to the Jarrow steel works; and give any approximate date as to the starting of the work in Jarrow?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I fear I can add nothing at present to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 9th November.

Miss Wilkinson: In view of the anxiety that is felt in this area, would the right hon. Gentleman make some inquiries as to when the preliminary work is likely to begin? I take it from what the Minister said that there is no doubt about it starting, but perhaps he could make some inquiries as to possible preliminary work?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Lady can be assured that I have not only been making inquiries but trying to urge the greatest haste. I think she will agree with me that it is unwise to raise hopes in this matter unless we are completely certain of the exact date when they will be fulfilled.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Runciman raised hopes in people by actually promising them that a steel works was to be established; and, as this matter has been going on for months, cannot the Government use their influence, if they have any, in order to have the works started?

Mr. Stanley: I am using my influence, and as a result a good many difficulties have been cleared out of the way.

FOREIGN CARPETS.

Captain Conant: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the alarming increase in the importation of foreign carpets and the consequential reduction in employment, he will request the Import Duties Advisory Committee to make an early recommendation with regard to the application for increased duties which is at present under their consideration?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 8th July last to the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte).

TURKEYS.

Mr. Leonard: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the refusal of the Import Duties Advisory Committee to recommend a reduction in the duty on turkeys and seeing that in consequence a tax of 3d. per pound will be levied on the turkeys now being imported for the coming Christmas season, which will make them too dear for a large section of the working-class population, he will say what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. Stanley: The duty was imposed on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and in the absence of a recommendation by that Committee to the contrary, no action is contemplated.

Mr. Leonard: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that large numbers of working people indulge in turkeys at this time of the year, and does he think that the Government should take this method of collecting taxation at this period?

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the census of turkeys last Sep-


tember showed that there were more turkeys in this country than there have ever been before at the same time?

WAR RISKS INSURANCE.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the negotiations with insurance companies in respect of antiaircraft insurance?

Mr. Stanley: I am not aware of any negotiations such as my hon. Friend suggests. On the general question of war risks insurance, I would refer him to the answers I gave on 2nd and 9th November to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Joel).

Mr. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication when the citizens of this country will be able to take steps to cover themselves against these risks if they should desire to do so?

Mr. T. Williams: As no private insurance company is likely to undertake this risk, will the Government consider the advisability of the Government accepting it?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer to which I referred, he will see that I dealt with that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

LAND PURCHASE, KENT.

Sir William Wayland: asked the Secretary of State for War the amount of land and the number of farms recently purchased by his Department in Southeast and East Kent; and the total acreage it is intended to purchase, the position of the land, and for what purposes it is intended to be used?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Land in South-east Kent in the area between Canterbury, Folkestone and Dover is required for military training. It is in contemplation to purchase some 16,000 acres in this area, but no purchases have been completed.

Sir W. Wayland: When the purchases have been completed will the farmers be allowed to remain on; if so, on what, if any, special conditions?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I will communicate with my hon. Friend and give him the answer which he requires.

Mr. Thorne: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that as soon as land owners know the War Office are to purchase land, the price goes up by 50 per cent.?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, because we have compulsory powers in case of necessity.

Mr. Thorne: Does that mean you have to go to arbitration in the case of every site?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: This is an arbitrated figure.

Mr. T. Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman assured himself that there is no land of less agricultural value than the land which has been bought?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: That is one of the considerations. Another is the necessity of having training grounds in particular areas.

Mr. Williams: When such large areas are being taken over for Government purposes, do the Department ascertain the relative values for agricultural purposes of one area and another?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have given instructions that all those considerations should be borne most carefully in mind, and that the utmost respect should be shown to both the agricultural and the town planning considerations involved. The War Office never takes a step except from necessity.

Mr. Ede: Is any of this acreage common land or manorial waste?

STRENGTH.

Captain Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for War the present shortage in the Regular and Territorial armies; and when he estimates these armies will reach full strength on their present establishments, taking the improved recruiting figures of the last three months as a basis?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: As establishments are liable to alteration, neither significance nor accuracy could be attached to a calculation on the assumptions in the question. My hon. and gallant Friend might, however, be glad to have the following


figures. If the establishment of the Regular Army had remained what it was in 1935 the strength to-day would be 96 per cent. of establishment. If the establishment of the Territorial Army had remained what it was in 1935, the strength to-day would be 90 per cent. of establishment. Meanwhile, owing to increases in establishments the Regular Army on 1st November was 19,619 short, and the Territorial Army 42,303 short.

Captain Macnamara: Would my right hon. Friend get into touch with the Home Office to arrange that any recruiting they may do for air-raid precautions does not adversely affect the Territorial Army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The demands of the State on the man power of the nation are very considerable, and it is sought to coordinate them as far as possible.

Mr. De La Bère: Is it a fact that the British Broadcasting Corporation does not encourage recruitment for the Territorials among its staff?

OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY.

Captain Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that retired officers do not receive the same emoluments to-day as they did in 1931; and whether he will explain why the cut has not been restored as were the cuts imposed in other professions?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. From 1919 to 1935 officers' retired pay, like the pay of serving officers and the bonus of civil servants, was subject to variation with changes in the cost of living. The only variations in retired pay made during these years, including 1931, were in accordance with this principle, except that whereas civil servants' bonus was brought into line with the current cost of living figure from 1st March, 1931, officers' pay and retired pay were issued at a slightly higher rate till 1st October, 1931. Pay, retired pay and civil service salaries were all consolidated in 1935 at rates corresponding to a cost of living figure of 55, which was the figure for the earlier part of 1931.

Captain Macnamara: Were not these retired rates of pay consolidated—no doubt by chance—when the cost of living happened to be very low?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have answered my hon. and gallant Friend's question, which is based upon a slight misapprehension. If he will read my answer, he will see that, if anything, officers have been slightly better treated than other sections of the community.

Mr. Lipson: Will my right hon. Friend revise these figures in view of the rise in the cost of living?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I cannot revise them. They are applicable to all services

RECRUITS (PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the successful experiment carried out in the early part of this year of affording special training and nourishment to recruits under standard has been further extended; and, if so, the number of recruits dealt with in this manner?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The maximum number under training at any one time at the Recruits Physical Development Depot was 235. The transfer of the depot to Canterbury, which took place on 20th November, will enable 300 to be taken, as soon as the accommodation is complete. The results of the experiment are most encouraging. Of 305 men who completed their training at the depot, 295 have been passed fit and sent to their regimental depots.

Mr. Bellenger: May I take it that in view of the fact that the Regular Army is largely under peace establishment the right hon. Gentleman proposes to extend this successful experiment?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir, I hope to be in a position to extend it. I think it is one of the finest services which the Army has rendered to the State, this taking of boys who are not completely fit and bringing them up to the standard by careful physical training.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not that experiment show that a large number of men in this country are under-nourished?

DIETARY.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give a specimen of the daily menu for the Regular Army, and for such recruits as are not physically fit for the Regular Army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The diet varies from day to day, but for purposes of illustration I will circulate a statement showing to-day's menus for a regular unit and to-day's menus for a regular unit and Depot.

Menus for 30th November, 1937.


—
A Regular unit.
Recruits Physical Development Depot.


6.30 a.m.
…
…
…
—
Tea and Barley Sugar.


Breakfast
…
…
…
Marmalade, Tea, Bread, Bacon and Beans, Margarine, Tomato Sauce.
Porridge, Liver and Onions, Margarine, Tea, Bread, Marmalade.


10.30 a.m.
…
…
…
—
Cocoa and Banana.


Dinner
…
…
…
Roast Beef, Boiled Potatoes, Cabbage, Jam Roll and Custard.
Boiled Beef, Dumplings, Carrots, Potatoes, Cabbage, Sago, Pudding and Custard.


Tea
…
…
…
Tea, Bread, Butter, Fried Whitings, Jam.
Cake, Tea, Bread, Butter.


Supper
…
…
…
Cocoa, Bread, Liver, Mashed Potatoes, Margarine.
Cottage Pie, Tea, Bread, Margarine.

NOTE.—Bread, meat, tea, sugar and salt are issued in kind. Other items are purchased by the messing officer of the unit through the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes from cash allowances in the quantities required to meet the needs of a varying dietary.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY.

OFFICERS' COLLEGE COURSES.

Captain Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for War by what method it is proposed to select Territorial officers for courses at the Staff and Imperial Defence Colleges; and whether the Territorial officers are to serve as long at these colleges as Regulars?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The methods of selection, the courses and their duration will in both cases be similar to those for Regular Army officers. For the Imperial Defence College Territorial Army students will, after recommendation, be nominated by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. For the Staff College Territorial Army students will be nominated by the Army Council after recommendation by their superior commanders and qualifying at the entrance examination.

Captain Macnamara: Would my right hon. Friend take into consideration that there is an excellent course at the London University which can turn out staff officers in the evenings, and which might possibly fill the gaps if the Government are prepared to pay the small fees which the course entails?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: My hon. and gallant Friend must know that I am only too

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman at the same time circulate some specimen menus from other armies, for example, the German army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I will do my best to obtain them.

Following is the statement:

ready to receive any constructive suggestions. If he will send me his proposals, I will take them into review.

NATIONAL DEFENCE SYSTEM.

Major Whiteley: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take an early opportunity to make a statement as to the part which the Territorial Army is intended to play in the national defence system?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The Territorial Army is intended to provide the first line in anti-aircraft and coast defence at home, and further to serve where it may be required at home or abroad, not in drafts but in its own units and formations.

COMPETITIONS.

Major Whiteley: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Territorial Army competitions such as the King's Cup for artillery tend to cause over-specialisation at the expense of a more desirable general training; and whether he will consider the modification of the conditions and conduct of such competitions with a view to eliminating this tendency?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The intention is to give units training in the duties they have to perform in war, but if my hon. and


gallant Friend has any considered suggestions to make, I shall be glad to consider them.

ADMINISTRATION (INQUIRY).

Captain Arthur Evans: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Welsh Territorial Force will be specially represented upon his committee to inquire into the general administration of the Territorial Army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: As the Territorial Army is composed of units raised in all parts of the country, it is not practicable to provide for representation on a geographical basis. I hope, however, the personnel of the Committee will command general assent.

Captain Evans: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will be in a position to announce the constitution of the committee?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: If my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a question next week, I shall hope to be able to do so then.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYS.

Mr. Ralph Beaumont: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider extending the regulations governing the granting of leave with pay to Government employés who are members of the Territorial Army so as to allow leave with pay to men attending courses of instruction in addition to that allowed for annual camp?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): Government employés who are members of the Territorial Army are allowed special leave with pay in addition to their ordinary leave in accordance with the arrangements approved early this year. Such special leave would normally be taken for the purpose of attending annual training in camp, but objection would not be taken to its being utilised in whole or in part on courses of instruction if desired.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

FISH TRANSPORT.

Major Neven-Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that 47 boxes of whether he fresh fish,

shipped from Scalloway on Wednesday, 17th November, which should have reached Glasgow on Friday, 19th November, had not reached Aberdeen by Saturday, 20th November; and whether, in view of the fact that Scalloway is only 12 hours from Aberdeen by a 15-knot steamer, and that the Shetland fishermen complain that they suffer heavy losses every winter through the inadequacy of the steamer service, he will cause an investigation to be made into the whole question of transport as it affects the prosperity of Orkney and Shetland and the Scottish islands?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I am informed that the consignment of fish referred to in the question reached Aberdeen in the early morning of Saturday, 10th November, and was placed in cold storage at Glasgow on that evening. The delay in arrival of the steamer at Aberdeen was due, I am informed, to stormy weather which caused a general hold-up of shipping. As regards the last part of the question, a sub-committee of the Scottish Economic Committee is at present engaged in examining the economic conditions of the Highlands and Islands and I do not see occasion, in present circumstances, for considering such an investigation as is suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we had precisely the same difficulties on the West Coast with a private enterprise service until his predecessor got a public utility corporation established with a limitation of dividend and a State director, and that since then those troubles have been obviated? Could he not do the same thing for Orkney and Shetland?

Mr. Elliot: I do not think that point arises out of the question.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that before any committee was set up these complaints were proven, and that it was well known that the service was absolutely inadequate for these islands?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Can the Minister say when we may expect the report of the Scottish Economic Committee?

Mr. Elliot: I could not say, but it will be at the end of this year, or at the beginning of next year.

Mr. Westwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of houses approved for grant for Scotland for the first six months of 1936 and the total number approved for grant for the first six months of 1937, and giving the numbers approved for grant under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, for each of these respective periods with the average grant per house?

Mr. Elliot: The Department of Health approved tenders for 9,782 State-assisted houses in the first six months of 1936, and for 11,029 houses in the corresponding period of 1937. I regret that I cannot say how many of these houses will be subsidised under the Act of 1930, as the allocation of houses to a particular Act for subsidy purposes is determined, not at the approval stage, but according to the use to which the houses are put when completed. The average grant per house in respect of houses completed during the half-year ended the 15th May, 1936, and allocated to the Act of 1930, is £12 7s. 3d., and according to claims so far submitted to the Department the figure for the corresponding period in 1937, is £13 8s. 6d.

Mr. Westwood: Is it possible to tell us the number of houses allocated under the Act of 1930 for a different period than the one for which I asked?

Mr. Elliot: I will look into that point and let the hon. Member know.

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many State-assisted houses in the Outer Islands built since 1931 have inside water supply; how many of those have lavatories; and how many have bathrooms?

Mr. Elliot: All of the 161 houses erected with State assistance by local authorities in the Outer Islands since 1st January, 1931, have inside water supplies, water closets and bathrooms. Of the 235 State-assisted houses erected by private enterprise since that date, 38 have these facilities.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of applications for houses which have been received by the housing department of the Glasgow Corporation for each year since 1933; the number of applications which have been granted in each year; and the number of

cases where the application has been before the corporation authority for three years or more without result?

Mr. Elliot: As the answer involves a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

1. Applications for the tenancy of houses belonging to the Corporation of Glasgow.

Year
Number of applications received
Number of houses let.


1933
12,944
4,224


1934
9,167
6,810


1935
10,710
5,383


1936
12,715
3,959


1937
10,286
2,641

2. Approximate number of applications still before the corporation which are three or more years old, 45,000.*

*It is estimated that at least half of these cases are not eligible for corporation houses.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses under the slum-clearance provisions are to be provided in the Borrowfield area of the Camlachie Parliamentary Division; and whether, in view of the bad housing conditions in this part of Glasgow, he will take steps to expedite the provision of houses for the people living in such housing conditions?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that the corporation are preparing plans for approximately 550 houses in the Borrowfield area to accommodate tenants from unfit or overcrowded houses. I shall continue to keep in close touch with the corporation to secure that the provision of houses to meet the needs of people living under such conditions is expedited as much as possible.

Mr. Charles Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this particular corporation are so backward? Are they competing with the Socialist Council in London?

Mr. Stephen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance the sanitary department of the Glasgow Corporation are prepared to give to tenants of houses in Glasgow infested by bugs and swarming with rats and beetles; and whether the department has ratcatchers on their staff whose services are available in such cases?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that while the sanitary department of Glasgow Corporation does not itself undertake the disinfestation of houses, its officers are prepared to advise tenants on methods for getting rid of vermin. Supplies of an insecticide, I am told, are also issued free of charge when considered necessary, and an officer from the department may attend to apply this insecticide. I understand that the sanitary department has ratcatchers, but not for work in private houses.

Mr. Stephen: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the best way to deal with this plague is to provide decent houses for the people?

Mr. Elliot: Oh, yes, certainly Sir.

LAND OFFICERS.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether effect has yet been given to the proposal announced a year ago of an intended improvement in the scales of pay of divisional land officers and the technical grades working under them; and whether he can make any statement as to the extent of such improvement?

Mr. Elliot: The remuneration of the divisional land officers and the officers working under them is at the present time the subject of negotiations on the Departmental Whitley Council, and, in these circumstances, the hon. Member will appreciate that I am unable to make any detailed statement as to the extent of the actual improvement under consideration.

Mr. Mathers: Does that mean that delay has taken place in dealing with the remuneration of these civil servants? Who is responsible for that delay? Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the matter is likely to be determined?

Mr. Elliot: It is true that the revised scales were laid before the staff in December, 1936, and negotiations have been in progress since that date, unfortunately without result so far.

WATER SUPPLIES (WESTERN ISLES).

M.M.MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what practical steps are being taken in the Western Isles of Scotland at the present time to provide wholesome water supplies in the villages

in place of many of the present dangerous and polluted supplies, and in which districts?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware that the water supplies at a number of places in the Western Islands are unsatisfactory in various respects. The County Council of Inverness have recently decided to institute an engineering survey into water supplies and resources in North Uist and will consider later whether similar surveys should be made in other islands in the county. Improvements to water supplies are at present being undertaken, I understand, at Leverburgh and Scalpay in Harris.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not a question for consideration in the future, but is a matter of urgency, because there is a danger to the health of the people? There are several examples, such as Eriskay, which he might investigate as a matter of urgency now.

Mr. Elliot: As I say, the county council are investigating.

Mr. MacMillan: The county council have never done anything.

DUKE STREET PRISON, GLASGOW.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered representations from Glasgow Corporation asking for the removal of Duke Street Prison, so that the site may be converted into an open space and thereby add to the amenities of the district; and whether the Prison Commissioners have prepared any scheme for the building of a new prison for women on the outskirts of the city, so that Duke Street Prison can be replaced at an early date?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware that the Glasgow Corporation were at one time considering the question of acquiring the site of Duke Street Prison for a city improvement or other civic purpose, but I have received no specific proposal from them. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 24th June last to the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern).

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

SHOT-FIRING.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is satisfied that


the regulations and orders made under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, dealing with shot-firing are fully carried out in all mines?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): No, Sir, but I am satisfied that there is seldom any wilful contravention. The number of accidents is not high in proportion to the large amount of shot-firing done, but so long as any accidents occur efforts to prevent them must be continued. The problem of still further minimising the risks is one of those at present engaging the attention of the Royal Commission on Safety in Coal Mines.

Mr. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has given consideration to the interim report prepared by the committee of the Institution of Mining Engineers on shot-firing and its alternatives; and does he propose to take any action?

Captain Crookshank: This report—an ad interim one—is largely a summary of information already published or relating to lines of inquiry or development which are already being followed. It does not point to any new line of action that I could usefully take.

Mr. Smith: Have the Mines Department considered recommending the use of coal bursters in preference to other methods?

Captain Crookshank: I do not think that question arises out of this report.

FIRE-DAMP (SHEATHED EXPLOSIVES).

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has sufficient evidence to show that the use of sheathed explosives in mines where fire-damp may occur tends to eliminate ignition; arid is it proposed to take any action?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir, I have good reason to believe that, m mines where there is danger from fire-damp, sheathed explosives, which are now extensively used, contribute towards safety in shot-firing. As regards the second part of the question, I will consider the possibility and advisability of a general measure of compulsion to the use of sheathed explosives as soon as certain outstanding technical problems have been solved. Meanwhile, I am glad to say rapid progress is being made in their adoption on a voluntary basis.

VOLUNTARY AMALGAMATIONS.

Mrs. Tate: asked the Secretary for Mines whether compensation has ever been paid by the purchasing company to miners displaced by the voluntary amalgamations of collieries that have taken place?

Captain Crookshank: I regret that I cannot give a definite reply, but no instance of such payments has come to my knowledge.

PRICES.

Mr. Batey: asked the Secretary for Mines whether the minimum prices fixed in each district selling scheme are in operation or whether there is still some coal being sold at less than the minimum prices?

Captain Crookshank: With the exception of certain minimum prices for export in Scotland, I know of no minimum prices the determination of which is required by a district selling scheme which are not in operation. No cases of evasion of minimum prices have been brought to my notice.

Mr. Batey: That reply does not answer my question, which was whether any coal is being sold under the minimum price?

Captain Crookshank: As I have just said, no case of evasion of coal prices has been brought to my notice.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Will the hon. and gallant Member be careful to keep up the cost of living to the poor consumer?

Mr. Batey: asked the Secretary for Mines which district is allowed to sell its coal in the London market for household purposes; and whether he can state the pithead price and the cost of the conveyance of such coal?

Captain Crookshank: So far as I am aware, any coal mining district may sell its coal on the London market for household purposes. The information at my disposal relates to average pithead prices of coal and not to prices charged for coal to particular markets, while the cost of conveyance varies according to the distance of the colliery from London and whether the coal is rail-borne or sea-borne.

Mr. Batey: Surely the Minister will give a different answer from that? What we want the Minister to answer is, what are the pit-head prices of coal sent to London, and what is the cost of convey-


ance? Surely he can answer those questions?

Captain Crookshank: If the hon. Member thinks over the considerations which I have given in my reply, he will see the difficulty of such a reply.

Mr. Batey: We have been told that before. Why not give an answer now?

Mr. Shinwell: Cannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman ask the Coal Merchants' Federation in London what are the pithead prices?

Captain Crookshank: We know what the average pit-head prices are, because they are published, but the hon. Gentleman is asking for something quite different, for a figure which obviously must depend upon the distance to London from the colliery and the means of transport, whether rail or sea.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the Coal Merchants' Federation in London aware of the pit-head prices of coal sold in the area and of the cost of transport?

SET LING SCHEMES.

Mr. Batey: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can issue a report of the working in each district of the selling schemes from the date of the amended schemes which came into operation on 1st August, 1936, until 1st August, 1937?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir. I think the report published in June last (Cmd. 5474) gives all the information I can usefully place before Parliament, until early next year, when, as was announced by my right hon. and gallant Friend on 25th November, I propose to present a further report.

Mr. Batey: Seeing that the new selling schemes came into force on 1st August, 1936, is it not essential that we should have a report to 1st August, 1937, so that we may be able to judge of the working of the schemes?

Captain Crookshank: I do not think there is any particular merit about a particular date. I gave a report to this House containing all the information which I had, and I promised another report within a few months.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Why have coal prices gone up so much more than food prices?

SOUTH AFRICAN TERRITORIES (ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS).

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has taken any steps to secure appointments in the protectorates for British-born and educated civil servants of like character and prospects to those in our Colonial service?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): As I informed the House in the course of the Debate on 29th July, improvement of scales of salaries and conditions of service of the administrative officers in the territories, which were designed to enable the administrative services of the territories to be linked up with the Colonial Administrative Service, have recently been adopted. Arrangements are now in force under which first appointments to the administrative services of the territories are normally filled by officers of the Colonial Administrative Service either transferred from elsewhere or selected under the Colonial Service recruiting arrangements. I should, perhaps, add that candidates whose home is in South Africa will, of course, receive the same consideration in connection with appointments to these posts as they already do for appointments to the Colonial Service generally.

Colonel Wedgwood: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him whether any Britons have been appointed to these services yet?

Mr. MacDonald: A number of appointments have already taken place under the new arrangements.

NEWFOUNDLAND.

Captain Cazalet: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the estimated output of iron ore from Newfoundland for the year 1937; the number of men at present employed at the mines; and the total amount distributed monthly in wages, together with the comparable figures for 1935 and 1936?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am glad to say that the iron-ore mines at Bell Island, Newfoundland, are now working to capacity. The Governor reports that the estimated output this year is 1,610,000 tons, as against an actual output of


662,000 tons in 1935 and 893,000 tons in 1936. The number of persons employed at the mines in September, 1937, was 1,982, an increase of some boo on the figures for the two previous years, when moreover many of those employed were on part time. The wages paid in September amounted to rather more than $217,000, an increase of some $150,000 over the two previous years.

Captain Cazalet: Can my right hon. Friend say whether those satisfactory conditions obtain not only in iron mining but in other industries in the Island?

Mr. MacDonald: Improvement is generally true with regard to all the industries in the island with the exception, I am afraid, of the important industry of fishing.

Mr. Levy: How much of this iron ore comes here?

Mr. MacDonald: I understand that some 250,000 tons will be coming here this year, a quantity far in excess of any which came to this country in any previous year.

Captain Cazalet: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of vessels entered and cleared from ports in Newfoundland for the first 10 months of 1937, together with the figures for 1935 and 1936?

Mr. MacDonald: The number of vessels entered at Newfoundland ports in the first 10 months of 1937 was 1,077, the figures for the full years 1935 and 1936 being 872 and 1,033 respectively. Vessels cleared from Newfoundland ports during the first 10 months of this year numbered 989, as against 803 and 917 in the full years 1935 and 1936.

IRISH FREE STATE (MIGRANTS).

Mr. Lambert: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the report of the Departmental Committee on Irish Free State immigration into this country will be published?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. I propose to place a copy of the report—which is quite a short document—in the Library of the House before the end of this week. I will gladly send my right hon. Friend, and any other hon. Members who may express a wish to receive it, a copy of the report.

Mr. Lambert: Will the evidence also be placed in the Library?

Mr. MacDonald: No, Sir, the report which was presented to me consists only of conclusions drawn from the evidence which the Departmental Committee heard, and they make certain references to it.

Mr. Lunn: Could not the right hon. Gentleman place the report in the Vote Office?

Mr. MacDonald: The document is quite a short one, and it did not seem worth while going to the expense of producing a White Paper about it, but, as I have said. I propose to send copies of the report to hon. Members who wish to have them, and if the number is so large that it would be obviously wiser to put it in the Vote Office, I should be glad to do so.

Mr. Thorne: If the Minister is not willing to put the report in the Vote Office, could we not publish the text of it in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. MacDonald: I will consider the whole matter when I know how many copies are wanted.

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman send me a copy?

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (DOMINIONS).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs particulars of the negotiations and correspondence that have taken place with the authorities in the Dominions for the purpose of obtaining their views on the Clauses and terms of the Cinematograph Films Bill which is at present before this House?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Copies of the Moyne Committee report, and of the White Paper containing the proposals for legislation on cinematograph films, were sent to the Dominions at the time. No observations 'have been received from them upon the contents of either of these documents.

Mr. Day: Is it intended to consult the Dominions after the Bill has left Committee?

Mr. MacDonald: The Dominions are 'lot concerned with the legislation of this House. As the President of the Board of Trade assured the House the other day


at Question Time, the question of approaching certain Dominion Governments or certain Australian State Governments in regard to their legislation is being kept in mind.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the Minister aware that Dominion Governments need not be consulted, and that under the terms of the Cinematograph Films Bill they can do just as they like?

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will give particulars of all films that have been censored and/or not allowed to be shown in the Dominions for the 12 months ended at the last convenient date?

Mr. MacDonald: I have only in my possession at present particulars relating to film censorship in the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand, and, as a number of figures are involved I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am making further inquiries as regards Film Censorship in the other Dominions, and I will communicate the results as soon as possible to the hon. Member.

Mr. Day: Are we to take it that those films which have been banned can be shown as Empire films?

Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps the hon. Member will study the figures when they are published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and then ask me any question which arises out of them.

Following are the figures:

Commonwealth of Australia (for the year 1936):



Standard Films—



Passed without eliminations
1,518


Passed with eliminations
147


Rejected in the first instance
19


New Zealand (for the 12 months ended 31st March, 1936):



Passed without eliminations
1,958


Passed subject to excisions
19


Rejected
11

IMPERIAL APPEAL TRIBUNAL.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the present position with regard to the setting up of an appeal tribunal for the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations;

and to what extent the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is now made use of?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the recommendations on the subject of a Commonwealth tribunal in the Summary of Proceedings of the Imperial Conference, 1930, where it was proposed inter alia that such a tribunal should be an ad hoc body appointed as occasion might require. No recourse has yet been had to a tribunal constituted on the lines proposed. As regards the second part of the question, which of course raises a different issue, the number of appeals from Dominions set down for hearing before the present Michaelmas session of the Judicial Committee is five from Canada and one from New Zealand.

Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Dominions themselves are satisfied with the present position as regards an Imperial appeal tribunal?

Mr. MacDonald: The only occasion when such a tribunal might have been helpful has arisen since the Conference of 1930, and I think that the circumstances surrounding that occasion are well known and need no further reference from me at Question Time.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. F. O. Roberts: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has received any report from the British Legion in relation to the inquiries being made into the condition of ex-service men; 147 and whether he can make any statement 19 to the House in regard to the matter?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave yesterday to a similar question by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith).

Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister propose, when the report has been received, to provide an opportunity for its discussion in this House?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I had better see the report first.

Mr. Roberts: Is it possible for the hon. Gentleman, in view of the growing concern about this matter in all quarters of the House, to do anything to expedite the presentation of the report?

Mr. Ramsbotham: It is in the hands of the British Legion.

FORESTRY COMMISSION, (WAGES, FOREST OF DEAN).

Mr. Price: asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether they have considered an application of representatives of their employés in the Forest of Dean for an increase of wages to meet the rise in the cost of living; and what decision they have come to in the matter?

Colonel Ropner: I have been asked to reply. The rate of wages of Forestry Commission employés was already under consideration when an application for an increase was received in December last. I n April last the standard rate was raised. Applications for a further increase have recently been received, but the Commissioners do not at present propose to make a further increase.

Mr. Price: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that certain classes of agricultural labourers are paid 39s. and 40s. a week in that same district, and that forestry work is often very special, skilled work; and will he not at least consider bringing the wages of the forestry workers up to the level of the special classes of agricultural labourers?

Colonel Ropner: I think the hon. Member is misinformed. The Forest of Dean lies in the counties of Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Monmouthshire, and the standard rates of pay for the lowest grade of forest workers are considerably above the agricultural wages rates for those counties.

Mr. Thorne: If the Forestry Commission have come to a deadlock, are they prepared to submit the case for conciliation and arbitration if an application is made to that effect?

Colonel Ropner: I am not aware of any deadlock.

CHURCH PROPERTY.

Mr. Mander: asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, what action it is proposed to take arising from the report prepared by Miss Marion Fitzgerald on the instructions of the Church Union, and with the assistance of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, indicating that the Church has been participating in ground rents from houses in Maida Vale and Paddington of doubtful character, and that on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' Walworth No. i estate, near Lambeth Palace, every house in one bad patch of property, from which ground rents are drawn, is infested with vermin; and whether the Commissioners have considered the advisability of promoting legislation to enable them, under Section 30 of the 1925 Act, to ask the court to break the type of lease in question?

Mr. Denman (Second Church Estates, Commissioner): The Ecclesiastical Commissioners do not accept the implications contained in the question. The Commissioners are satisfied that either the police or the housing and sanitary authorities enjoy full powers to remedy abuses of the kind referred to wherever they may be found to exist. It is not the function of the Commissioners to invite Parliament to amend the law governing the powers of owners of land and of houses respectively, and no special protection of the Commissioners against inaction by those charged with its administration would be appropriate. The hon. Member could more speedily attain his beneficent purpose if he would persuade the authorities to exercise their powers so as to bring these houses, over which the Commissioners have no control, up to the standard which the report says is maintained by the Commissioners in respect of their own property.

Mr. Mander: Does not my hon. Friend feel that the Church has a special responsibility in this matter, and that it really cannot get out of it by saying that these properties are let on long leases; and will he not consider, if he thinks the circumstances appropriate, coming to Parliament for special powers to break the leases?

Mr. Denman: As I have stated in my answer, it is scarcely the function of the Commissioners to invite Parliament to


make a change in the general law governing the relationship between landowners and householders respectively.

Mr. Maxton: Would the hon. Gentleman be so good as to inform his fellow Commissioners that their duty is to look after the material property of the Church, and not to deliver sermons to Members of this House?

Mr. Denman: My hon. Friend may be assured that we look after the property of the Church far better than we deliver sermons.

Mr. Bellenger: When breaches of covenants occur, have not the Commissioners the right to sue in the Courts for forfeiture of the lease; and why are they not doing so when breaches of covenants have been established?

Mr. Denman: We do take action where breaches of covenants are established. In these cases I know of no breach of covenant arising at all.

Mr. Whiteley: asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the annual amount received by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in coal royalties?

Mr. Denman: The amount received by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in respect of royalties on coal for the year to 31st March, 1936 (the last available), was £239,000.

EX-MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PENSIONS).

Sir Assheton Pownall: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the recommendations of the Departmental Committee set up to consider the possibility of a scheme for pensions for ex-Members of Parliament?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The report of the Committee is, I understand, nearly ready, and will probably reach me in the course of a week or so.

Sir A. Pownall: Does my right hon. Friend think it will be possible to make the report available to us before the Christmas Recess?

The Prime Minister: I should not like to answer that question until I have the document.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS COVENANT.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that the Government, in basing their policy on the Covenant of the League of Nations, including Articles 16 and 19, adheres to the interpretation of Article 16 given in Annex F to the Treaty of Locarno, to the effect that each State member of the League is bound to cooperate loyally and effectively in support of the Covenant and in resistance to any act of aggression to an extent which is compatible with its military situation and takes its geographical position into account?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly not prepared to offer any fresh interpretation of Article 16 of the Covenant.

Mr. Mander: Does the Prime Minister adhere to the statement made by the Foreign Secretary some months ago, that the British Government does accept that interpretation?

The Prime Minister: When we wish to depart from any policy that we have already expressed, we shall duly give notice of it.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider initiating proposals for strengthening the economic machinery of the League, so that economic sanctions arising out of Article 16 could be planned in advance, and not improvised when it is too late to do so with any hope of success?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put that question down.

INTERNATIONAL CONVERSATIONS.

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take advantage of the visit of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary of France to make it clear to the French Government that this country has no intention of identifying itself with any combination of Powers purporting to be directed against the alleged dangers of Communism?

The Prime Minister: I would remind the hon. Member of the statement by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in this House on 1st November, that His Majesty's Government will join neither an anti-Communist


nor an anti-Fascist bloc. I have no doubt that the French Government are already aware of this statement.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has now any statement to make regarding the recent conversations in Germany and the conversations which have just taken place with representatives of the French Government?

The Prime Minister: As regards the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to previous answers which I have given on this subject. As regards the second point, the best answer I can give to the right hon. Gentleman is to read the terms of the communique which has been issued at the conclusion of the conversations with the French Prime Minister and the French Minister for Foreign Affairs. This was as follows:
M. Chautemps and M. Delbos had a number of conversations with the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and other British Ministers during their stay in London on 29th and 30th November.
The French Ministers heard from Lord Halifax himself a statement on his recent conversations in Germany. They were glad to recognise that while Lord Halifax's visit, being of a private and unofficial character, was not expected to lead to any immediate results, it had helped to remove causes of international misunderstanding and was well calculated to improve the atmosphere.
The problems of Europe as a whole and the future prospects of appeasement and disarmament came under review. On these important subjects the French and British Ministers found fresh evidence of that community of attitude and outlook which so happily characterises the relations between France and the United Kingdom.
A preliminary examination was made of the colonial question in all its aspects. It was recognised that this question was not one that could be considered in isolation, and moreover would involve a number of other countries. It was agreed that the subject would require much more extended study.
The French Ministers in their turn spoke of the forthcoming visit of M. Delbos to certain countries in Central and Eastern Europe. They were happy to note the common interest of the two Governments in the maintenance of peaceful conditions in those parts of Europe.
The situation arising out of the Spanish conflict and Mediterranean questions generally came under review. It was agreed that despite all difficulties the policy of non-intervention in Spain had been fully justified and had

contributed materially to diminish the international repercussions of the conflict. It was resolved to continue to pursue the efforts of the two Governments in this direction in order to give full effect to this policy.
The French and British Ministers examined the Far Eastern situation, the gravity of which they fully recognised. They were agreed as to their readiness to co-operate, with other Powers similarly placed, to protect the rights and interests and to meet the obligations arising from international treaties relating to that part of the world.
The French and British Ministers went on to review in a spirit of mutual confidence the other aspects of international affairs of common interest to the two countries. While in no way departing from their previously expressed conception of international collaboration, they reaffirmed the desire of their Governments to co-operate with all countries in the common task of promoting international appeasement by the methods of free and peaceful negotiation.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to extend the conversations to other countries, and not confine them to this country and Germany and to this country and France; and whether the conversations are being carried on with other countries with a view to trying to arrive at a general settlement of these problems with all the countries concerned?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the ultimate object we have in view is what he has described as a general settlement. It is quite obvious that no general settlement can be arrived at merely by conversations between two or three countries, and, therefore, we must ultimately contemplate that other countries will be brought into these conversations. At the same time, I must make it clear that I do not think we have got as far as the advisability of an immediate extension of the conversations, although that may come at a later stage.

Mr. Mander: May I ask whether it is proposed to have a Debate on foreign affairs?

Hon. Members: No.

ARMED FORCES (HIGH COMMAND).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Prime Minister whether the form and personnel of the high command in the event of war are decided upon; whether he can give


an assurance that plans for the exercise and co-ordination of the high command are specific and complete; and whether the Government's policy in regard to unified command is decided upon in relation to every international alignment in such an event?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative, subject to continued reconsideration in the light of changing circumstances. In reply to the last part of the question, the general principles that should govern the Government's policy in regard to unified command have been carefully studied, but their precise application to any particular set of hypothetical circumstances cannot be decided in advance.

Mr. Garro Jones: On which Minister does the responsibility fall of dealing with the question of unified command in its national aspect?

Mr. Hannah: Have not the Opposition got war on the brain?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid the responsibility will fall on me.

CIVIL AVIATION (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).

Mr. Montague: asked the Prime Minister what is to be the revised composition of the committee to inquire into civil aviation?

The Prime Minister: My Noble Friend has considered the representations, which have been made from several quarters of the House, to the effect that the committee should contain no official element. My Noble Friend's sole desire is to appoint the most competent and authoritative committee possible. I am confident that in no quarter of the House is there any wish to question the competency, impartiality or authority of the public servants whose selection has been announced. However, to meet the views expressed in the House it has been decided to reconstitute the committee, the membership of which will be:—Lord Cadman, G.C.M.G., Chairman; Sir Frederick Marquis, J.P., Mr. T. Harrison Hughes, Mr. J. W. Bowen, J.P.

Mr. Montague: Is the Prime Minister aware that a great deal of the objection to the composition of the committee originally was to its chairman, and will he consider the desirability of changing that chairman for some one who is, shall we say, less compromised politically?

The Prime Minister: A singularly ungracious response. I certainly was not aware that there was any particular objection to the chairman, and I do not at all accept the suggestion that the chairman is in any way compromised.

Mr. Perkins: Will the evidence be heard in camera? Is it proposed to publish the evidence and findings, and can organisations such as the British Air Line Pilots' Association be legally represented at the inquiry?

The Prime Minister: The evidence will be in camera. It is understood that the inquiry is to be a private one, and the evidence is not to be published. With regard to the organisations to be represented before the committee, the procedure of the committee must be a matter for the committee itself to decide.

Mr. Attlee: Is it customary in appointing a committee such as this for the Minister concerned to consult the Prime Minister, or does he act solely on his own responsibility?

The Prime Minister: I do not think there is any general rule. Sometimes it is done one way; sometimes the other.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does this incident not emphasise the desirability of the Secretary of State for Air being a Member of this House, in order that he may be in touch with the feeling of this House in regard to such a matter as this?

FRENCH STATE RAILWAYS (LOANS).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, since the £40,000,000 lent to the French State railways last January had his approval, he has approved of the proposal to raise a similar or smaller loan in London itself as a continuation of this borrowing?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): No such proposal is before me.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the right hon. Gentleman be particularly careful that he does not fall to the blandishments of some of our foreign creditors?

Sir J. Simon: That is a hypothetical question.

FOREIGN LOANS (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS).

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that three-fourths of all the foreign Government bonds issued in London and quoted on the London Stock Exchange are in whole, partial, or threatened default; and will he ask the Foreign Loans Advisory Committee to keep this condition of affairs continually in mind so as to prevent more British savings being lost by a relaxation of the embargo on flotation of loans to borrowers outside the British Empire?

Sir J. Simon: I do not accept my hon. Friend's estimate, but I am aware that there is a regrettably large number of such loans in default. In reply to the second part of the question, I would refer to the answer which I gave my hon. Friend on 15th June last.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the title of these foreign investments which are in question?

Sir J. Simon: Not without notice.

Mr. Loftus: Will the right hon. Gentleman, before considering the relaxing of the embargo on foreign investments, consider appointing a committee to investigate the whole case of capital losses incurred by this country through foreign indebtedness?

Sir J. Simon: I am not convinced at all that that would be a suitable course.

Mr. Lansbury: Has the Treasury considered the suggestion of Sir Josiah Stamp, that the best way of settling these questions would be by the establishment of an international bankruptcy court?

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as overseas lending creates export trade, and as there have been continued losses of British savings and tax revenues caused by defaults on foreign loans issued in London, he will, in collaboration with the

Foreign Office, organise an inter-departmental committee to watch our foreign investments so as to intervene at an early stage, upon threat of default by a foreign borrower, as the Council of Foreign Bondholders has, as shown in its last 10 annual reports, been unable to protect British investors against loss of capital values and income from foreign loans?

Sir J. Simon: The Treasury and the Foreign Office already keep a careful watch on these questions, and His Majesty's Government are always ready to consider the question of intervention if their assistance is requested. An interdepartmental committee such as my hon. Friend suggests is, therefore, unnecessary. I do not know whether my hon. Friend intends to suggest that negotiations on these matters should be taken out of the hands of the Council of Foreign Bondholders. If he does, I am wholly unable to accept such a suggestion.

Mr. De la Bère: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the Council of Foreign Bondholders should be given additional power to enable them to safeguard the British public?

Sir J. Simon: I consider that the Council of Foreign Bondholders perform a very useful purpose, and, as I said in the original answer, they are in close touch with Government Departments, and we give them all the help we can.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it not a fact that these losses on foreign investments are the equivalent to making a free gift of British goods, for which the British taxpayers have to pay?

Sir J. Simon: The economic effects of these things we can work out, but I do not think it is a matter of making a free gift.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it desirable to encourage foreign investments?

Dr. Leech: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that one of the weaknesses in the defence of, British foreign investments is the lack of power of the Council of Foreign Bondholders to make its protests effective, as shown in most cases in its annual reports; and will the Government, in view of this weakness and in relation to fostering the export industries of the North-East Coast, assume in future the duty of looking after the treatment of our investments by the foreign borrowers?

Sir J. Simon: It is always open to the Council of Foreign Bondholders to re quest the support of His Majesty's Government. Such requests for support are in fact frequently made by the council in cases of default on foreign securities, and always receive sympathetic consideration by His Majesty's Government. The conduct of negotiations on these matters must, however, remain in the hands of the authorised representatives of the bondholders, and the answer to the second part of the question is, accordingly, in the negative.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will, in order to warn British subjects against risk of future losses, make it a condition, before relaxing the embargo on the marketing in London of any foreign loans, that all bond flotation concerns which invite subscriptions to the issue here of the paper of foreign public authorities shall give in prospectuses or offers for sale particulars of the whole or part defaults by the respective foreign borrowers on obligations marketed here during the previous 20 years?

Sir J. Simon: I do not think that such a condition would be necessary. It must be left to the market to assess the credit of foreign borrowers in London, and the past financial records of would-be borrowers are easily obtainable by intending investors.

Mr. De la Bère: Would it not be better to lend money at 2½ per cent. to agriculture in Great Britain?

Mr. T. Johnston: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the remarkable revelations made by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) as to the result of investigations made at Geneva as to the complete waste of most of the money at least invested in South American Republics on armaments since the end of the War?

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will prepare a scheme for Anglo-Brazilian exchange clearing so that, if the proposals by the Brazilian Government in respect of debt default are not of such a kind that the British negotiators can recommend them for acceptance, an Anglo-Brazilian exchange clearing may be ready for the protection of £262,000,000 of British capital in Brazil listed on the London Stock Exchange?

Sir J. Simon: I do not think I can usefully say anything at the present stage, more than that the whole position is being most carefully considered.

ARGENTINA (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that we purchase more from Argentina than Argentina does from us; that an Anglo-Argentine exchange clearing house could correct the unsatisfactory position of British capital invested in Argentine public utility concerns by retaining out of the clearing balance due to Argentina 5 per cent. per annum on 250,000,000 of investments; and will he consider using this method pending expiry of the Argentine meat agreement?

Sir J. Simon: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the remainder of the question, I am not prepared to adopt the method suggested. I may remind my hon. Friend that the difficulties of British public utility companies operating in Argentina involve questions other than the remittance of profits to the United Kingdom, and, in the view of the Government, they are best dealt with by negotiations between the companies concerned and the Argentine Government, with such assistance as they may ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and he may be able, to give.

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any recent negotiations have taken place between His Majesty's Government and the United States of America Government regarding a settlement of their inter-governmental debts; and whether such an arrangement is likely to form part of, or coincide with, the anticipated trade agreement between the two countries?

Sir J. Simon: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

CHINA AND JAPAN.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total expenditure incurred by His Majesty's Government in 1927, under all


headings, in connection with the movement of Military, Naval, and Air Forces to and at Shanghai, in order to safeguard British interests there?

Sir J. Simon: I cannot give figures for the calendar year 1927, but the statements appended to the Appropriation Accounts for Navy, Army and Air Services, 1927, show that the approximate amount of additional expenditure incurred in the financial year 1927–28, in connection with the situation in China, amounted to £3,112,980 for all three Defence Services.

BRITISH MUSEUM (READING ROOM).

Mr. Harvey: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any decision has yet been reached as to extending the hours of opening of the reading room of the British Museum, so as to permit of it being available to readers after 6 p.m.?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The trustees of the British Museum have given their most careful and sympathetic consideration to the question of extending the hours of opening of the reading room. The financial and administrative objections to such extension are serious. I understand, however, that a final decision has not been reached on all aspects of the problem.

INCOME TAX (HOARDINGS).

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the practice to assess poster hoardings to Income Tax?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Yes, Sir. Income Tax in respect of hoardings is normally charged by way of an assessment under Schedule A on annual value; or alternatively, in certain circumstances, by way of an assessment under Schedule D on the rent.

HORWICH COUNCIL SCHOOL (PLAYING-FIELD).

Mr. Graham White: asked the Parliametary Secretary to the Board of Education whether proposals have reached him in connection with the purchase of 8¼ acres of land from the Associated Clay Industries, Limited, required by the

Lancashire Education committee for playing-field purposes for the Horwich Council school; if so, whether the land has been acquired and at what price; and, if the land has been rateable, what its assessment was?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): No such proposals have reached the Board.

LAND ACQUISITION, NEW HERRINGTON.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Houghton-le-Spring Urban District Council, Durham, has decided not to purchase for building purposes a site of 3.9 acres of land at New Herrington, considering the price too high although the district valuer recommended acceptance and the Minister of Health was prepared to sanction purchase at the valuer's figure; whether he can say what is the rateable assessment of that land; and, if the council has since acquired an alternative site, what is its area, its rateable value, and the sum proposed to be paid?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): The urban district council informed my right hon. Friend on 6th October that they had decided to purchase this land for housing purposes and he has sanctioned the necessary loan.

WATER SUPPLY, WYTHENSHAWE, MANCHESTER.

Mr. McGhee: asked the Minister of Health what action is being taken to secure an adequate supply of pure water to the inhabitants of the Wythenshawe Estate, Manchester; whether he is aware that medical officers of adjoining areas have expressed concern at the prolonged continuance of the present conditions; and what precautions are being taken to guard against an epidemic in this area?

Mr. Bernays: I am obtaining information on this subject, and I will communicate with the hon. Member when I have received it.

Mr. McGhee: Is the hon. Gentleman, aware that the same answer was given, just over a year ago, and that I arm asking for action in this question?

MUNICIPAL MARKET, CAMBRIDGE.

Mr. White: asked the Minister of Health the price at which the Cambridge Corporation recently purchased from Jesus College an area of seven and a-half acres for the extension of the municipal market; and what was the rateable value of this land previous to purchase?

Mr. Bernays: The price of the land referred to was £5,625. The land was agricultural, and therefore derated.

TYPHOID OUTBREAK, CROYDON.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the inhabitants of Croydon were not warned immediately upon the outbreak of typhoid and advised to boil their water before use; and will he make inquiries as to why this precaution was not carried out?

Mr. Bernays: This is a matter which will, no doubt, be invested at the forth-during inquiry, and it would obviously be improper for my right hon. Friend to anticipate the results of that inquiry.

Mr. Day: Is it not the custom to give notice such as that referred to in this question?

Mr. Bernays: I should like to have notice of that question.

ALLOTMENTS, WORKSOP CORPORATION.

Mr. Hayday: asked the Minister of Health whether the Worksop Corporation have completed negotiations for the purchase of land in Sandy Lane and East-gate for the purposes of allotments; what is the area and the previous rateable value of the land; and, if purchase has been effected, what price was fixed, whether by agreement or after arbitration?

Mr. Bernays: I am informed that purchase has not yet been effected in either of these cases.

GREEN BELTS AND OPEN SPACES.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he has taken, or will take, steps to recommend to county councils and urban local authorities the consideration and adoption of green belt proposals similar to those initiated by the London County Council?

Mr. Bernays: Many of the larger local authorities are already examining the possibility of reserving land as green belts or regional open spaces in connection with the preparation of their planning schemes. My right hon. Friend is considering whether there is anything further he can do to accelerate the adoption of proposals.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Gentleman submit to his superior the desirability of recommending to the various authorities that this green belt proposal should be instituted wherever necessary?

Mr. Bernays: I will convey the suggestion of the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend.

GOLD COAST (OFFICIALS' DEPENDANTS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why a compassionate grant of £50 per annum was made to the widow of an inspector of works in the public works department, Gold Coast, who had retired on a pension in 1923, and £10 per annum to his son; and whether this action will be taken as a precedent to be applied, where necessary, to the relatives of deceased officials without discrimination between white and coloured races?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): It is already the established practice that appeals for assistance from the dependants of officers who have served under a Colonial Government are considered on their merits by the Government concerned. The case referred to, which was one of real distress, was dealt with in accordance with this practice. There is no question of any racial discrimination in this matter.

Mr. Sorensen: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department and this particular colony of the Gold Coast will meet the case of the coloured races as well as the white races?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As I have said, these are cases of special grant and they cannot be dealt with here because the circumstances are not known. They are dealt with by the Colonial Government concerned, and, as I said in the answer, there is no question of any racial discrimination.

Mr. De la Bère: What did the B.B.C. do on 7th May?

SIERRA LEONE.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement respecting unrest in Sierra Leone; what is the nature of the Bill to become operative in January, 1938, dealing with rural administration; and what is the composition of the special committee of inquiry?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There is not, to my knowledge, any unrest in Sierra Leone, The Rural Areas Bill has been designed to make provision for the better administration of the rural areas of the police and headquarters judicial districts of the Colony. The recommendations upon which the Bill is based were subjected to the consideration of a committee consisting of all the unofficial members of the Legislative Council, two members of the House Tax Advisory Board, and the District Commissioner, under the chairman-

ship of the Acting Colonial Secretary, whose report was unanimous.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the composition of the special committee of inquiry includes representatives of natives in an unofficial capacity?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I said that the unofficial members of the Legislative Council were there. They were all represented.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 120.

Division No. 31.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cooks, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Grimston, R. V.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Assheton, R.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Gunston, Cast. D. W.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hannah, I. C.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Crooke, J. S.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C
Harbord, A.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Cross, R. H.
Hartington, Marquess of


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Crossley, A. C.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Balniel, Lord
Cruddas, Col. B.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Culverwell, C. T.
Hedgers, Captain F. F. A.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
De Chair, S. S.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
De la Bère, R.
Higgs, W. F.


Bernays, R. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Denville, Alfred
Holmes, J. S.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Doland, G. F.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Blair, Sir R.
Donner, P. W.
Hopkinson, A.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dower, Major A. V. G.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Drewe, C
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Duggan, H. J.
Hulbert, N. J.




Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Keeling, E. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Dunglass, Lord Eastwood, J. F.
Kerr, Colonel C. I (Montrose)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Eckersley, P. T.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Kimball, L.


Bull, B. B.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Butcher, H. W.
Elmley, Viscount
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Butler, R. A.
Emery, J. F.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Emmett, C. E. G. C.
Lees-Jones, J.


Cary, R. A.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leigh, Sir J.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Errington, E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Levy, T.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Lewis, O.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Liddall, W. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Everard, W. L.
Lindsay, K. M.


Channon, H.
Fildes, Sir H.
Lipson, D. L.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Fleming, E. L.
Lloyd, G. W.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Christie, J. A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Loftus, P. C.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Lyons, A. M.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Gower, Sir R. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Granville E. L.
McKie, J. H.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk. N.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Maenamara, Capt. J. R. J.




Macquisten, F. A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Magnay, T.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Maitland, A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Taylor, Vice-Adm, E. A. (Padd., S.)


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Rickards, C. W. (Skipton)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Marsden, Commander A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Train, Sir J.


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Rowlands, G.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Mills, Sir F. (Leylon, E.)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Turton, R. H.


Mitchell, H. (Brantford and Chiswick)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wakefield, W. W.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Salmon, Sir I.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Moreing, A. C.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Warrender, Sir V.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Savory, Sir Servington
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Munro, P.
Scott, Lord William
Wayland, Sir W. A


Nall Sir J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Neven-Spence, Major B. H H.
Shepperson, Sit E. W.
Wells, S. R.


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Smithers, Sir W.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Palmer, G. E. H.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Peake, O.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Peat, C. U.
Southby, Commander A. R J.
Winterton, RI Hon. Earl


Perkins. W. R. D.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Pilkington, R.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Storey, S.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Aesheton
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Radford, E. A.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-(N'thw'h)



Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ramsbotham, H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Captain Dugdaie and Mr.




Furness




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Harris, Sir P. A.
Riley, B.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hayday, A.
Ritson, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bonfield, J. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Barnes, A. J.
Hopkin, D.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Batey, J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Seely. Sir H. M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sexton, T. M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Kelly, W. T.
Shinwell, E.


Benson, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Short, A.


Bevan, A.
Kirby, B. V.
Silverman, S. S.


Bromfield, W.
Lansbury. Rt. Hon. G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Burke, W. A.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Gharleton, H. C.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Leach, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Leonard, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Leslie, J. R.
Stephen, C.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpath)


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thorne, W.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maclean, N.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Walker, J.


Evans. E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mender, G. le M.
Watkins, F. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mothers, G.
Watson, W. McL.


Frankel, D.
Marton, J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Westwood, J.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Muff, G.
White, H. Graham


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parker, J
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Grenfell, D. R.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Price, M P.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Quibell, D. J. K.



Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, Agnes
Ridley, G.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Anderson.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

PREVENTION AND TREATMIENT OF BLINDNESS (SCOTLAND).

Mr. Allan Chapman: I beg to move,
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to enable local authorities in Scotland to make arrangements for the prevention and treatment of blindness.
This is a short Bill of four Clauses giving permissive powers to local authorities in this matter. The expenses incurred will be met in the same way as the expenses incurred under the Public Health Act of Scotland. It is a Bill of a non-contentious nature. I think that when we deal with the dreadful affliction of blindness all party differences fade into the background. On 1st April of this year there were 8,738 blind persons of all ages in Scotland, and it is my belief that some of that blindness would have been averted had preventive measures been taken in time. One of the purposes of this little Bill is to make sure that local authorities in Scotland shall have power to take those preventive measures. That very authoritative body, the Standing Committee on the Prevention of Blindness, to whom I am indebted for much help and information, began their 1936 report with these words:
There is at the present day a great deal of blindness which might have been prevented if suitable precautions had been taken in time.
I suggest that that statement places a very great responsibility upon this House in respect of blind persons, and those threatened with blindness. I am glad that we now have the W. H. Ross Foundation for the Study of Blindness in Scotland. The object of the Bill is to enable local authorities to take such precautions as they think necessary in the matter of diseases and injuries to the eyes. In England and Wales the local authorities have power under Section 176 of the Public Health Act of 1936 to make schemes of arrangements and to take these preventive measures. This Bill aims to give the same powers to our local authorities in Scotland. It will enable them, without qualification or restriction, to make schemes of arrangements for diseases of the eyes or injuries to the eyes. We have perhaps been a trifle illogical in that in Scotland we have placed upon the local authorities the task of caring for the blind without giving them powers to attack the conditions that lead to blindness. Prevention is very much

better than cure or attempted cure. Economically there is nothing more disabling than blindness, for of the 8,738 blind persons in Scotland no fewer than 6,799 are described as unemployably blind. Quite apart from the education of the blind, something like £300,000 per annum is spent by charitable institutions on the care of the blind in Scotland. This Bill will close the gaps that exist in the powers of the local authorities in Scotland. They have powers under certain Acts like the Maternity Act to deal with certain types of blindness, but there are gaps in their powers, and this Bill is therefore designed so that we can safely say that no one threatened with blindness in Scotland need be neglected.
The Ministry of Health for England and Wales, under Section 176 of the Public Health Act, drew up a model scheme of arrangement by which notification by medical practitioners was allowed for in the case of people threatened with blindness; systematic visiting of those threatened with blindness was arranged also, and treatment could be given at clinics or operations performed in hospitals, and glasses supplied in the case of persons in need. One English authority which has been operating this scheme was good enough to let me know that in one year's working it received 21 notifications of persons threatened with blindness, and it is quite propable that a number of those cases would not have received treatment or have been brought to official notice had this notification scheme not been in being.
This is a permissive Measure. Perhaps one day when finance permits we can turn the word "may" into "shall." In the meantime I would conclude with another quotation from the report to which I have referred, which states:
The adoption of preventive measures has already produced a marked improvement and conditions are very different to-day from what they were 60 years ago.
That is my justification for taking up the time of the House. I would add that right hon. and hon. Members opposite in the Labour party, the Liberal Opposition and the Independent Labour party, as well as right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, have been good enough to assure me of their support and I would like now to express my gratitude to them. I would add that I believe the Bill will


have the sympathy of the Scottish Office. I beg to ask leave to introduce this Bill.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chapman, Miss Horsbrugh, Mr. Johnston, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Welsh, Lord William Scott, Sir Douglas Thomson, Mr. Erskine Hill, and Major Neven-Spence.

PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF BLINDNESS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

"to enable local authorities in Scotland to make arrangements for the prevention and treatment of blindness," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the separation of Dominica from the Leeward Islands, and for purposes connected therewith." [Dominica Bill [Lords.]

Commodity
Week ended 16th November, 1935.
Week ended 27th November 1937.




s.
d.
s.
d.


(a) Wheat
Per cwt.
5
11
8
10


(a) Barley
Per cwt.
8
5
12
10


(a) Oats
Per cwt.
6
1
8
5




Week ended 13th November, 1935.
Week ended 24th November, 1937.




1st quality.
2nd quality.
1st quality.
2nd quality.




s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


Cattle, fat
Per live cwt.
35
2
30
9
42
10
38
10


Sheep, fat
Per lb.
0
10¼
0
9
0
11¼
0
10


Pigs, fat:











Baconers
Per score lbs.
10
3
9
3
14
5
13
4


Porkers
Per score lbs.
12
2
11
2
16
6
15
5


(b) Butter, British dairy fresh.
Per lb.
1
4¼
1
2¼
1
7
1
5¼


(c) Cheese, English dairy cheddar
Per cwt.
79
0
67
0
101
0
91
0


(b) Eggs
Per doz.
2
2
1
11½
2
5½
2
3¼


(b) Fowls
Per head
4
6
3
5
5
4
4
2


(d) Potatoes:











King Edward VII
Per ton
129
6
118
6
131
0
116
6




s.
d.
s.
d.


(e) Milk
Per gallon
1
5
1
6


(f) Sugar beet
Per ton
36s. to 38s.
36s. to 37s. 6d.


(a) As ascertained from Returns received from 173 Scheduled Markets, pursuant to the Corn Returns Act, 1882, and the Corn Sales Act, 1921.


(b) At country markets.


(c) At Bristol and London.


(d) At representative Wholesale Markets.


(e) Prices are Producers Regional Prices for month of November.


(f) Prices are those for seasons 1935–6 and 1937–8, respectively. These prices very according to the factory concerned, and are subject to addition or deduction of 3d. for each 0·1 per cent. by which the sugar content is above or below 15½ per cent.

Consolidation Bills.—That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely: That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

Orders of the Day — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 25th November.]

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Approval, effect and amendment of air-raid precaution schemes.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I desire to raise some general questions concerning the efficacy of the measures which the Government propose in the preparations they have made to protect householders in the mass, the ordinary citizens of the country, against the dangers which an air raid involves. I have done so with the purpose of asking questions of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who, I understand, is to reply, and of elucidating a little further some of the points with which he dealt in the Second Reading Debate. In particular, I want to talk about what the Government call the refuge room, about the protection which is to be afforded against gas attack, against high explosives, and the provision of public shelters, about protection against fire and about the schemes for evacuation.
I am certain that there is no one in any quarter of the House who did not thoroughly enjoy the speech of the Under-Secretary on the Second Reading of the Bill. Some sections of the Press called it a reassuring speech. I thought it a very able speech and a very ingenious speech, and, if I may say so without offence, I thought it was a first-rate Parliamentary performance; but I confess that even at the time it did not reassure me very much, and as I have examined it further since it was delivered and have reflected more on the problems involved, and as I have listened at length to other statements which have been made from the Government Bench, I am reassured in a less and less degree. The Under-Secretary made me uneasy directly he began to attack a group of people who have come to fame under the name of the Cambridge Scientists' Anti-War Group.

He said on Second Reading that they had at least a political tinge, and he implied that he was careful to make no direct or definite assertion that they were part of what he called a Communist-inspired movement, a movement which had been condemned by the National Executive of the Labour party. He even produced a publication of the Labour party, and I was very glad to see it in his hands. On an earlier occasion the Under-Secretary had been a little less cautious, for when he was asked in a supplementary question by an hon. Member behind me whether this Cambridge Scientists' Anti-War Group was not a subsidiary of the Communist party—

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot now discuss Clause 1 over again. What is before us is purely the question under what conditions the Secretary of State may give his approval. We cannot go into general principles.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not desire for one moment to dispute your Ruling. I desire only to say that the spirit in which this has been approached is one which leaves us very little reassured. If you, Captain Bourne, think that I should not pursue that point any further I shall pass from it at once.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is really a matter relating to Clause 1, on which we had an exhaustive discussion. We must now deal solely with the conditions which the Secretary of State may require for approval of the scheme.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I was about to refer to the bona-fides of the Cambridge Scientists' Anti-War Group, who have not had any connection with the Communist party. I was uneasy about that, because it seemed to me that the Government had resented the exposure of the Cambridge Scientists and that the Government were inspired by a desire to stifle criticism. I want to continue the criticism about some of the measures which the Government propose. Perhaps I may begin by reminding the Committee of the scale of attack which is to be expected, because I repeat that this is really vital to the efficacy of the measures to be taken. I quote the Home Secretary in his opening speech on the Bill:
During the four years of the War, 300 tons of bombs were dropped in this country,


I should be within the mark if I said that to-day the lowest estimate indicates that a greater tonnage of bombs could be dropped within the space of 24 hours and that the scale of attack could be maintained for many days."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1937; col. 41, Vol. 329.]
That scale of attack would be mostly on the civil population. Hon. Members will remember the very serious statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary the other night in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), in which the right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to disguise the very grave dangers which threaten the civil population. The serious aspect of the matter is that the more efficacious the active defence may be, the more the fighter aeroplanes and the anti-aircraft guns do, the more probable it is that the civil population will suffer.
The experience of the war in Spain has shown that air bombardment of a small objective is very ineffective. I have here an article by the military correspondent of the "Times" showing that attacks upon small objectives were very costly and did very little damage; that the result of bombing individual batteries and bridges near Madrid was negative; but that the bombing of objectives 500 or boo metres in length and from 15o to 200 metres in breadth was extremely effective and yielded excellent results. That effect is enhanced by a black-out. A black-out is sometimes thought of as being one of the measures taken to protect the civil population. It is, in fact, nothing of the kind, but is a measure taken to obscure military objectives. Everybody knows that any bomber, with the instruments which are now possessed and the skill which the pilots have in flying at night and in bad weather, will find London and Birmingham. The bombers will not miss Sheffield, as they did on more than one occasion in the last War. They will find Sheffield, but they will not be able to find a given factory or the railway station, and they will drop bombs at large, in the blackout, upon the civil population.
Let us consider the defences which the Government propose. In literature, in Debates here and throughout the country, they have repeated that the first line of defence is the refuge room in the average

householder's house. The Under-Secretary was particularly reassuring about the refuge room, and I would like to ask him some questions about it. In the Second Reading Debate, I argued that there were probably from 7,000,000 to 8,000,000 people in this country who were living in such overcrowded, or nearly overcrowded, conditions that it would be impossible for them to prepare a refuge room in advance, and that therefore they would not effectively have a refuge room, so that when the attacks came the greater part of them, or at any rate a considerable part of them, would have to be evacuated.
The Under-Secretary said that I was mistaken and that he was very happy to correct the mistake I had made. He said that anybody could prepare a refuge room at the last moment and that it would even take only a minute or two to do so. Of course, he was assuming that adequate advance preparation had been made. I maintain that the efficacy of a refuge room, both against gas attack and against splinters from high explosive bombs, depends upon the window, and that unless the window is protected, there is no protection against high explosives and against splinters which come in the right direction. In the last War, a German aeroplane dropped one bomb on Warrington Crescent, Paddington, which badly damaged 16 houses and slightly damaged 400 others. In those 400 houses every pane of glass was shivered, and nothing remained. Modern bombs are much more effective. The bomb that was dropped on Warrington Crescent killed 16 people, but the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) told us the other day of a single bomb dropped on Shanghai which killed 1,000 people.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: Two bombs.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Five hundred people killed per bomb. I do not suggest that the ratio of efficacy of the modern bomb is as 500 is to 16 against the bomb of the last War; but the efficacy of bombs has enormously increased. If the glass of 400 houses was destroyed by one bomb in the last War, the danger from concussion will be greater the next time. Allowing for the strengthening of the glass by cellophane and by the hanging


of a spare blanket—if one happens to have one—over the window, is it believed that the refuge room will be any good unless it is sandbagged? The Government themselves suggest that windows should be sandbagged. I am certain that the Under-Secretary would not put his wife and family in any refuge room in London which had not been sandbagged over the window. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has not got one."] I am certain that no hon. Member would put his wife and family in a refuge room the window of which had not been sandbagged. If the window is to be sandbagged, it must be boarded up, and the sandbags must be prepared and filled in advance. How are the people to live in one of their rooms if it has been sandbagged?
The hon. Gentleman is in this dilemma, that if the windows are sandbagged before the air raid comes, the people will not be able to live in the room, and if they are not sandbagged, then when the air raid begins the windows will have to be sandbagged. Let it be remembered that the houses will be in places where there is no earth, and that great dumps of earth will have to be provided. There will have to be boards with which to board up the windows. That will represent an enormous piece of work. I submit that in the case of all the poorer families in the country, where they are living in over-crowded or nearly overcrowded conditions, this business of a refuge room is very unsatisfactory, and that unless the Government can make much better and more complete plans than any yet suggested, their schemes of evacuation will have to be even larger than we suggested the other day. It is true that if a steel plate 1½ inches thick were provided for the window, if it were the right shape and if there were some means of adjusting it so that it would stay over the window and not fall down when concussion happened, that would furnish the same protection as sandbagging; but who is to provide the steel plates? Will the Government do it? They have not told us. That is one of the questions on which we feel very great anxiety.
I pass now to the question of gas attacks. I have said on more than one occasion in these Debates that, in our view, gas is much the least danger to be faced. It is a danger against which it is

possible to make the most apparent preparation, and perhaps that is why the Government push it so much to the fore. Gas may be a fearful danger if there is the sort of contingency that was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest) the other day. If the enemy succeed in making an attack—not as the Home Secretary suggested with high explosives on one day, with incendiary bombs on another day and on another day with gas—for then, perhaps, gas might not be very frightening—and if they managed, by high explosive and incendiary bombs, to get people out into the streets and then sprayed them with mustard gas, it would become a very serious matter. Against that danger we have no really efficient scheme of defence, except the evacuation of the congested areas and the provision of adequate shelters for those who must remain.
Apart from that, we are not quite as happy as the Under-Secretary appeared to be about the measures which have already been taken. I do not wish to discuss at length the gas-proofing of the refuge rooms. I merely wish to say that experiments on gamekeepers' cottages on Salisbury Plain or on the special constructions of which Wing-Commander Hodsell spoke, or even the experience with regard to French farmhouses during the last War, are not conclusive. We know that in this country we have had five generations of jerry-building, and many of our houses will not even keep out the weather, let alone poison gases. I venture, first, to make the assertion that no slums can really be made gas-proof in any sense that will be satisfactory in practice. Secondly, I am not wholly happy about gas-masks. I know that they have been very unfavourably commented upon in the technical Press of continental countries. I know that in some of the experiments which have been made people who wore the gas-masks could smell the tobacco when a lighted cigarette was held underneath—or so it was said. In any case, I am sure there are many unsolved problems about which I hope the Under-Secretary will tell us.
With regard to the fitting of masks to people, it is not enough simply to see that a person wears a mask. They will have to be shown how to put it on, it will be necessary to be sure it is the right


size, and that it is adjusted properly. I would not like to be put in charge of adjusting one of those masks unless I had had some instruction on the subject. It will have to be certain that there are the right numbers of each of the three sizes which the Government are preparing. I have here a letter from an air-raid warden, who happens also to be a lieut.-colonel, which appeared in the "Times" yesterday, and in which the writer says that he has been trying to find out, in the area for which he is warden, how many masks of the three different sizes he ought to have. He cannot do it, because he has not the powers, and there is not the information available. I am certain that there are problems of storage still to be solved. Some of the masks—I believe all of them—would have to be distributed before the war began, because I think that proper distribution after the war had begun would be a question that would baffle the authorities, or at least be very difficult. In any case, whether the masks are distributed or not, there has to be storage somewhere near the places where the people live and after the people have had a chance of trying them on. The problem of storage is one of great difficulty.
There is then the question of repairs and refills. Many of these gas masks are very delicate things. I see that in the German instructions about their civil gas masks, they say that a sharp finger nail may irreparably damage a gas mask, and they say that if the filter is dented, it must be taken in and renewed. There are problems about instruction in the fitting and use of the gas mask. But that is not all. There has to be instruction with regard to the protection of food from gas contamination. The air-raid handbook shows that housewives, shopkeepers, farmers and middlemen all have to know the right measures to take. Those measures may not be very difficult ones, but I am certain that they will not be taken if we rely on a pamphlet alone. There has to be personal instruction. What are the Government doing about that instruction? We are told that they are going to have a "Householder's Handbook." I think it is about time, and I hope it will be complete and comprehensive and that it will be distributed soon to every householder in the land.

The Deputy-Chairman: How does the hon. Member reconcile what the Government are doing with this Clause, which is a question of what schemes local authorities put up and not of what the Government are doing?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am trying to suggest, Captain Bourne, that the Government ought not to approve schemes unless they are really efficacious, and that if they are inviting the local authorities to put up schemes which are not efficacious or not providing them with the means to make them efficacious, no approval should be given. In Hampstead they had a course of lectures attended by 60 people, and there are 90,000 people in Hampstead, so that we may be certain that less than 0.9 per cent. of the population profited by the instruction given.
Now, perhaps, I may pass on to high explosives, which are certainly more serious than gas. The experience of recent wars and of the Great War has shown that people when subjected to the bombardment of high explosives want to go underground. It may be irrational, and it may be far better that they should stay in their refuge rooms in their own houses, but in fact they will not do it, and you cannot enforce it unless you have military discipline of the civil population, which is not a practical proposition. It was shown in Madrid, in Canton, and in Shanghai, and it was proved conclusively in the last War. Everybody remembers that in the last War there were fearful scenes on some occasions on the underground railways. I read an account of one raid in which 10,000 people went into Old Street Station and stayed there for hours. Babies were born and people died before they came out. There was another occasion when 14 people were killed and 14 injured in the crush in trying to get into an underground station, and in Paris 66 people were killed in one underground station.
The people will insist on having shelter, and we believe that those who remain in the congested areas must be provided with underground shelters of some kind. It may be very costly. I do not know whether it is possible in London—I have no means of knowing—to do what has been done in Paris, where they have prepared the cellars as underground shelters for the people. We were told in the Second Reading Debate, and I have


verified the fact in French literature, that shelters for something like 2,000,000 people or rather more in Paris are already prepared, and that in the houses where there are underground cellars, instructions are put up how to reach the shelter, and if there is no shelter in the building, there is an instruction as to where the nearest shelter is to be found. I hope the Under-Secretary of State will be able to reassure us a little more on that question.
I pass on to incendiary bombs. We have always said, as the Home Secretary implied in his Second Reading speech, that the incendiary bomb is much the greatest danger which we have to confront. The Committee will remember that the Under-Secretary of State was very particularly reassuring about the incendiary bomb. We all remember his delightful description of how young ladies would scoop up thermite bombs with a little spade and bucket. But I have here a very different account, given not long ago by the chief officer of the Heston and Isleworth Fire Brigade, in which his account of trying to deal with thermite bombs led to very different conclusions. According to the air-raid pamphlet, the incendiary bombs will vary in weight from 2 lbs. to 60 lbs. It may be that the two-pounder can be dealt with by the young lady with her spade and bucket, if she gets there in good time, but consider an account given on the day after our Debate—it was published in the Press—by a leading Home Office fire official, who said that the modern incendiary bomb would burn through an ordinary house roof, possibly setting rafters alight, in 20 seconds, go through the bedroom floor and ceiling in another 12 seconds, and drop to the ground floor. That means that within a minute there would be three fires to deal with.
Suppose there is an air raid going on. The young ladies are not standing on the roof; they are in the refuge room, shut in, and they are not very likely to hear the two-pounder coming through the roof because of the bombardment of the antiaircraft guns, and if they hear a noise, they will think it is the shell case of one of the rounds of the anti-aircraft guns coming to earth. They will not go up to tackle the fire until the air-raid warden has come round to tell them to do so, but the air-raid warden has 150 incendiary bombs to deal with—150 fires, as the

Home Secretary told us. How long will it be before these people get out of their refuge rooms and are dealing with the fires with their spades and buckets? I wish good luck to the Government, but, for my part, I am not very satisfied that in fact that system will work. I hope the Government will at least provide every householder, and will not approve any scheme which does not enjoin that every householder shall be provided, with all the equipment that can be required. We must remember that the danger spreads from one house to another and that it does not concern only the one householder himself, but the community as a whole. I hope the Government will continue research into the means by which such fires can be put out, and I hope they will greatly increase the fire equipment with which they intend to provide the local authorities. I end again with the same conclusion from that danger as from the others, that large-scale evacuation of the congested areas which are liable to be attacked is required, that where there is not evacuation there must be shelters, and that there must be much more adequate preparation and much more expenditure of money than the Government have yet made.
I should be sorry if the Committee thought that this is all theorising. It so happens that I received this morning a letter from an air-raid precautions officer in a very important district, which will quite certainly be liable to attack. I have not his permission to use his name or to give the name of the place where he is engaged, but I have his permission to read some extracts from his letter. I shall make no comment on it of any kind, but I will read two or three passages from a letter of four pages, all of which bears out what I have said. Here are the passages:
I have for the past year been acting as organiser for the—Council, and know only too well what has to be done and how futile and inefficient the Home Office has shown itself to be, so far.
I may add that I know the identity of the writer, who is a man who has held very distinguished positions indeed, as the Committee would know if only I could tell them who he is. He goes on:
No doubt real progress has been hindered by its decision on general policy and the matter of finance, but even then much could have been done, at no cost, had the Home Office known what ought to be done.


He ends in this way:
Briefly, the whole position is muddle. The Home Office says, 'Prepare a scheme.' We reply, 'Yes, certainly, but what about the base hospitals? We must have some idea as to where they will be and what they will accommodate.' We are told to supply names of persons to receive warnings. We reply, 'When you tell us what the sound signals are to be, and how far they will carry, we will be able to decide who should distribute warnings.' We ask about evacuation. No answer. We ask about shelters; are referred to a silly sketch. We ask about some guide to architects; are told that a book will be issued in a mew months. We ask to have our officials trained at anti-gas schools; are told, No vacancies'.
I think that speaks for itself, and I hope the Under-Secretary of State will give us a pledge that, as a result of the Debates which we have had, the Government will take this matter seriously in hand, propose far greater financial provision than they have yet contemplated, and prepare plans that will really give us some hope that some protection will be given to the vast mass of the people of this land.

4.41 p.m.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I wish to ask my hon. Friend whether he will impress upon the local authorities, when drawing up their schemes for air-raid precautions, the desirability of incorporating in those schemes a register of those in their area who would be prepared, in the event of an air raid taking place, to help in some way or other, and, if necessary, to refuse his approval if some such scheme is not incorporated. I consider that this is a different proposition from that of providing a band of public-spirited volunteers who are trained to fight any fires which might break out or deal with any other immediate results of an air raid. There are, I believe, a great many men and women in this country who neither have the time nor possibly the inclination to join such voluntary bands, but who nevertheless, at a time when enemy bombing machines arrive, would be only too eager to assist in some way or other.
We have heard, during the course of the Committee stage of this Bill, a great deal about evacuation, but to my mind the thought which would be foremost in the minds of most able-bodied men and women when bombs began to fall would not necessarily be how quickly they could

save their own bacon, but how best they could help their fellow sufferers in the country as a whole at a time of national emergency. I know that this supposition raises possibly wider points than would be permitted for discussion on this Clause, but presuming that the outbreak of war would be heralded by an air raid, it appears to me that an Air-Raid Precautions Bill is not altogether an inappropriate place in which to make some provision for the mobilisation of those who would wish to help their country at that moment.
Suppose, for the sake of illustration, that bombs all of a sudden began to drop round this House, say, to-night. I am sure that the thought in the mind of most hon. and right hon. Members of this House would not be how quickly they could scuttle off to Surrey or the East coast, but rather how they could be most helpful in a time of very grave emergency; and I suggest—I may be wrong, and I hope I am wrong—that only a very small number of hon. and right hon. Members of this House now and even after this Bill has been passed, however willing they would be to help in some way or other, would not have the remotest idea what to do. Some hon. Members, it is true, are members of Territorial units or on the reserve of some regiment, who presumably would report to the headquarters of their regiment, but I suggest that the majority would not have the least idea where to report, where to go, or what to do. I think it is obvious that all of us, except those right hon. Members who are in charge of some Government Department, could be far more usefully employed in some other job than sitting in this House. Many of us could serve in a most useful capacity, such as reinforcing the police force. A first essential in the event of an air raid, having regard to the subsequent panic that would take place, is to have some reserve of men, and hon. Members could be relied upon to keep cool heads in time of emergency and to help the police, whose energy and endurance would be sorely overtaxed. Other hon. Members who have a knowledge of medicine could give most invaluable service in helping to deal with the casualties. Others who own or who are able to drive a motor car could also be usefully employed, while other hon. Members might use their


powers of oratory to urge people to keep calm.
There are thousands of able-bodied men and women who in the event of an air raid taking place, or in the event of the outbreak of war, would be only too anxious to help in some capacity or other, and who could be very usefully employed, but at the moment they have the vaguest idea what to do or where to go in such an emergency. My recollections of the outbreak of the last War are necessarily very hazy, for reasons of age, but. I have been informed by people who held posts of responsibility at that time that their fives were rendered veritable nightmares, and their efficiency was greatly impaired by their being pestered by patriotic citizens who wanted to know what they could do. Eventually, work was found for those who were willing to do useful work, but even then men and women were put into posts for which they were the least suited.
What I ask is that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should take powers in this Clause by some Amendment between now and the Report stage which would make it compulsory for the local authorities to include in their schemes a register of all those who would be willing to help in the event of an air raid taking place. That register could allocate those people to the tasks which they are best equipped and best suited to perform, such as police service, helping in hospitals and driving motor cars. The procedure would be entirely voluntary, and only those people would be registered who wished to assist. It would be inexpensive, and would only mean the keeping of a few clerical entries, Such a precaution might possibly save panic, it would avoid a great deal of useless running about and questioning and would enable those who wish to serve their country to do so to the greatest national advantage.

4.50 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I think the hon. Member misconceives, quite innocently, the meaning of the purpose of evacuation. Evacuation is not for the purpose of enabling people to scuttle into safety but for the purpose of removing those who during an air attack would be an actual embarrassment to the conduct of operations. If we take, for instance, an area near the docks, there are living in close

proximity to the docks very large numbers of men, women and children who, in the event of an air attack, would have to be dealt with by the local authorities. I hope the Home Secretary will not approve any scheme which does not include the evacuation of those people, because if a large number of people were left in a position where they might be attacked, and certainly under conditions of war they would be attacked by high explosive bombs, the only result would be to embarrass all the services, to prevent anti-aircraft guns manoeuvring in the streets, to prevent decontamination officers going to the places where decontamination was needed, and to prevent the wounded and the killed from being removed. In addition, it would simply provide a very much larger number of casualties to fill our hospital accommodation, whereas the proper place for those people is a place removed from the point of attack.
Let the hon. Member look at the matter from the standpoint of military attack. I do not know whether he has any military experience, but if he views the matter from that standpoint he will realise that no military commander if he is going into an attack would mass the bulk of his troops in the point where there is to be a barrage. He would put the minimum number of troops there. In the same way, if you are expecting to be attacked in an area in London, Glasgow, Birmingham or elsewhere, you have to remove all the population that you can from those areas, otherwise they will merely incommode the military operations, and from the point of view of humanity they will merely be a useless sacrifice. I am afraid—it may be, unfortunately, owing to past precedents—that it is the habit of this country to learn by useless sacrifices. The Committee will remember that during the great War it was not until the useless sacrifice of Passchendaele had been gone through that we learned some elementary facts about the conduct of trench warfare. I do not want that to happen again. Therefore, I should like to make a few concrete suggestions to the Under-Secretary for his consideration, and to ask that they might be taken into account when the Secretary of State is considering the approval or otherwise of any scheme submitted to him.
The other day I drew a somewhat horrific picture of what might happen in


an air attack in a congested area. Fortunately, all areas are riot of that kind and are not equally vulnerable. It will be necessary for the Secretary of State to undertake a detailed survey of the different areas in the country and, as it were, to put them into different categories, say, No. 1 area, which is liable to attack and is congested, or No. 15 area, which is extremely unlikely to be attacked and has a very scattered and sparse population. To take extreme examples, the county of Brecon, a lovely spot which I happen to know, is one place that I should judge least likely to be attacked. The precautions necessary there would be of quite a different character from those necessary in, say, Stepney, Poplar, Glasgow or elsewhere. The classification of districts in a number of categories would be of the greatest advantage and is a prime necessity in any plans of a concrete kind, because unless the right hon. Gentleman knew the liability to attack of the areas in question he would not know what plans to approve or disapprove.
I have another specific point that I should like to make, and I hope the Under-Secretary will give sympathetic attention to it, and that is the question of the control of the different services which will have to function during an air raid. The Noble Lord referred to the enlistment of volunteers. A very important question in regard to any air-raid precautions scheme will be that of control, whether it is to be democratic control or otherwise. It is often suggested that the control of the air-raid precautions services should be in the hands of the police. I have the highest regard for the police. We in this House have a very high regard for the police. During recent months I have become intimately acquainted with a number of provincial police forces and a large number of police all over the Metropolitan area. I have the highest regard for their qualities; they are an admirable body of men, but, although I do not say they are unfitted for this duty, I do not see how in an air raid they would have any time to command the operations. It would not be their function.
The Under-Secretary knows that during an air raid when bombs were dropping the police would have a very sticky job

in directing the traffic in the streets and giving information, and would not have the time, and they have not the training, to take control and command of organisation which is based upon local authority organisation. I suggest that the organisation should be based upon the principle of the command coming through the air-raid precautions committee of the local authority, acting through the town clerk, or the clerk of the county council or the corresponding officer for the authority concerned exactly as functions at the present time are performed partly through the medical officer, partly through the borough engineer, and so on. If the hon. Member will consult the handbooks he will see that the services laid down for air-raid precautions work are based upon the normal functioning of the local authorities, and are in addition to the functions of the local authorities. For instance, decontamination work is based upon the work of the cleansing services, under the authority of the medical officer of health.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: Have the local authorities a register of the people who would be willing to help in these functions?

Dr. Guest: That is where the hon. Member and myself are completely agreed. They have not, and that is one way in which improvement is needed. The hon. Member's suggestion might be approved. It is a good suggestion. It is important not only to have a register of the people who will work, but more important to see that the command and the method of command is a thoroughly democratic one, which allows the people of the district really to take control. People require to be reassured in that respect, because there is certainly a fear, and it is a fear which I feel to some extent, that under conditions of air invasion there might be an iron grip of a military kind on the country, which would be highly undesirable. We do not want that. These are the main points that I desired to put to the Under-Secretary and I hope he will agree with me that I have been trying to make points of a constructive and helpful character under very terrible conditions.
Since the late Debate I have made some inquiries in regard to air-raid precautions systems abroad, and I do not think that we are likely to get a great deal of help


from those directions. When things are a long way off they sometimes appear to be better than when you see them close. There used to be a word well known in military circles, namely, "eyewash," and I am not certain that that is entirely unknown in certain countries abroad. I am of the opinion, to a certain extent, of the air-raid precautions officer whose remarks were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker). I think the Home Office has been very remiss in its training schemes and in the general plan which it has put before the country. The people do not know what is expected from them and in those circumstances it is very difficult for the local authorities to know what is expected from them. I hope that the general plan will be made more definite and clear-cut. We do not want to give way to hysteria on the subject. We do want a proper and ordered consideration of the matter and we want the necessary precautions to be carried out in the most effective way. There is only one authority which can give a lead and whose duty it is to give a lead to the whole country, and that is the Home Office. They must lay down the general lines on which local authorities are to proceed more clearly than has been done up to now. Otherwise, they will not be able to get the information which they want and will not be able to approve of schemes when they are submitted. The important points, as I say, are, first, the arrangement of the areas of the country in categories according to their vulnerability to air attack, and, secondly, the very important question of the democratic control of the organisation.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Harold Mitchell: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) and was glad to hear that experiments are being carried out by the fire brigade in the borough of Heston and Isleworth, as I happen to be associated with a neighbouring borough, and that area like all areas in the Metropolitan district is particularly affected by this Bill and particularly concerned about the whole question of air-raid precautions. I listened with special interest to the hon. Member's remarks on the subject of the danger from broken glass and from incendiary bombs, and I agree with him on the importance of those points. I

think the danger from broken glass is a very serious one.
I had the opportunity some months ago of seeing the effect of an air raid on a town in southern Spain. What struck me most was the extraordinary amount of damage that was done to glass. The bombs used were 100 1b. bombs, and a comparatively small number was dropped, yet the glass in practically all the windows anywhere within 100 yards from the places where the bombs dropped, fell outwards on to the streets. The streets were simply a mass of glass. No incendiary bombs were dropped, but had any incendiary bombs been dropped, and had there been a fire brigade available to deal with the fires—in that case there was not—it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for vehicles with pneumatic tyres to have negotiated the streets, which were covered to a depth of two or three inches with shattered glass. No pneumatic-tyred vehicles could go for any distance without having the tyres cut to ribbons.
I have asked some people who are connected with matters of this kind to offer some suggestions on how that difficulty could be dealt with, but I have not had very satisfactory replies up to the present. I think that that is a practical point which ought to receive attention. Incendiary bombs present what is perhaps the greatest danger in an area like London. I agree with the hon. Member for Derby that we cannot expect that all fires will be dealt with by householders. We shall have to rely ultimately upon the use of fire brigades in many areas, and I should like to know what suggestions are being made to local authorities to enable the fire engines to function successfully in circumstances such as I have described.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: I hope it will not be thought that there is any hostility on this side of the Committee or indeed in any part of the Committee to the Government as regards the provision which it is desired to make against the possibility of air-raids. I have taken every opportunity available to me of seeing what has been done and of investigating what is being done, and I am satisfied with the statement of the Under-Secretary that, by the use of the ordinary method of proofing, in the ordinary house, it is possible to make a room reasonably secure against


gas. But the remarks of the last speaker indicate that in the event of incendiary and explosive bombs being used, the destruction of glass would be so great as to make the effective proofing of rooms almost an impossibility. I would like to know what provisions the Government intend to ask local authorities to make for dealing with conditions of that kind. I suggest that the Department has not done sufficient yet, and that it ought to do much more than merely invite people to proof rooms in their own houses as a precaution against gas raids.
In almost every thickly populated district there must be buildings which could be proofed against ordinary gas attack, and the duty ought to be imposed upon local authorities, before their schemes are approved, of seeing that such buildings are gas-proofed and made available for shelters. It would be a great mistake, as I say, to suppose that it is not possible to make the ordinary room reasonably proof against gas, but when all that has been admitted, the fact remains that great numbers of people live in slum areas or in thickly populated industrial areas where the nature of their residences, the fact that many of them live in one room only, and the character of the rooms themselves, may make effective gas-proofing impossible. The character of the structures themselves and the possibility of the destruction of glass by heavy bombs are also factors which should be given consideration. May I refer to the pamphlets which are being issued by the right hon. Gentleman's Department as part of their publicity campaign? They are all too complicated.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that matter arises on this Clause. We are dealing solely with what should be put into these schemes in order that they may get approval. The hon. Member may make suggestions as to what should be done by local authorities before they get approval for their schemes, but I do not think he can on this occasion go as far as to criticise the Department of the Secretary of State.

Mr. McEntee: I had no intention of pursuing the matter further. I was about to suggest that before the Department approved of a local authority's scheme they should also see that the local authority was taking the necessary steps to

secure publicity for these measures by issuing material in a simple form which would enable everybody to understand what is expected of them and to know what was being done by the local authorities and the Department. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should avail himself of a means of publication which appears to me both simple and effective but in regard to which nothing has been done up to now. There are many local newspapers throughout the country which are closely read by the populations in the areas where they circulate. I suggest that the Department should insist on simple statements being published in the local newspapers by the local authorities. If the Home Office refused to approve of a scheme unless such publicity measures formed part of that scheme, it would be a great advantage, and I commend that point to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman.
As regards evacuation, I think the point has already been covered, and I desire to add only that I, also, am strongly of opinion that it is essential in the interests of the country and of the people themselves that evacuation should be seriously and practically considered, at least as regards thickly populated areas. The only other point with which I wish to deal is the actual proofing of buildings. I saw the experiments which were recently carried out near Bristol and I was much impressed by them. I believe that the simple methods demonstrated on that occasion can be said to be reasonably effective, but I do not forget that the building on which those experiments were made was of a different type from the buildings to be found in the ordinary slum area. Consideration will have to be given to the differences between varying type of building construction. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) referred to the degrees of effectiveness of different kinds of paper for proofing purposes. That is a very important factor. I do not think that ordinary newspaper, for instance, can be said to be very effective. Brown paper may be more effective, though I am not sure, but there is a specially prepared paper which I understand is the most effective of all.
Why not provide local authorities with supplies of specially prepared paper for distribution among the people in their areas? Arrangements should be made for


the supply, not only of the paper for sticking over windows and doors but also of the adhesive matter for sticking it. Local authorities, before their schemes are approved, should be asked to provide paper or other material for covering cracks in doors and windows, and also a suitable paste, such as was used in the recent experiments, for applying the paper. These points may be considered of minor importance but I regard them as essential. They relate to precautions which may have the effect of saving many lives and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give them consideration.

5.15 p.m.

Colonel Ropner: I want to raise a comparatively unimportant point arising out of a case which I recently submitted to the Under-Secretary. An acquaintance of mine, who is a Government employé, attended an anti-gas school and qualified as a Home Office instructor. He is intensely interested in anti-gas measures, is extremely efficient, and already gives official lectures in anti-gas measures. In his spare time he is endeavouring to arrange unofficial courses of lectures, but he has not been able to do so because he has found it impossible to obtain a sufficient number of gas masks. The most he has been able to obtain is two or three when he really requires 50 or 100. I am informed that large stores such as Harrod's and Selfridge's would be willing to lend their co-operation to encourage their employés to attend anti-gas courses such as my acquaintance is prepared to organise, but they will take no such steps if the training is to be given without gas masks, for it would reduce the training to a farce.
There must be other men as qualified as my friend, and it seems a pity that when the Government have invested a certain amount of capital in training them and making them Home Office instructors, it should not be found possible to allow them to obtain the necessary number of gas masks for private classes. Neither I nor the Minister need be interested whether such men are desirous of augmenting their private incomes or of passing on the instruction which they have received. The fact remains that they are highly qualified men who undertake this work very efficiently. I have suggested that after due inquiry there should be a strictly controlled issue of gas masks to

these Home Office instructors, but this morning the Under-Secretary wrote to me that it was laid down that the issue of masks should be limited to local authorities. I hope that the Under-Secretary will reconsider that decision and will in proper cases and after due inquiry enable these men to give instruction.

The Deputy-Chairman;: I have listened to the hon. and gallant Member to see what connection his speech has with the Clause, and he has convinced me that it has none.

Colonel Ropner: I had more or less reached the end of what I wanted to say, and I hope that the Minister may somehow or other find it in order to give me an intimation of his views after hearing what I have said.

5.19 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: The question of evacuation is important, especially in London, where it may be of advantage. I fear, however, that the Home Office will lay down rules for evacuation which will probably apply also to other towns. Evacuation may be of advantage in a place such as London which is not only a large crowded centre, but will be a target of enemy aircraft. The Air Ministry should be consulted with a view to ascertaining what will be the most probable targets. In London evacuation will not interfere with the life and industry of the place, but in other towns, such as Nottingham and towns further north, the evacuation of the people will sterilise them and it will not be a real defence against enemy aircraft. Whereas in London there may be three or four air raids every week, other places will not get them so frequently, and there is a great danger that the Home Office will issue orders—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman, like most others, seems to have misconceived this Clause. We are not discussing what the Home Office will do, but what schemes the local authorities are to submit for approval. It is not a question of orders from the Home Office, which ought to have been raised on Clause 1.

Sir H. Seely: I think the local authorities are bound to take the view that the Home Office takes on these matters. In the north of England they do not take


air-raid precautions anything like so seriously as people do here. The danger is nothing like as great. It is a question of which places will be the target—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is a Second Reading point and we cannot discuss it on this Clause.

Sir H. Seely: I will leave that. I hope that the local authorities, when bringing their schemes to the Home Office, will not be influenced by Home Office views, but will take into consideration the point whether they are likely to be targets. I hope that they will consider such questions as the provision of shelters, because, although shelters may be impossible in London, they are not impossible in other towns. I hope that shelters will find a place in the schemes of the local authorities, for they will give greater protection to their people than if they followed the line set by the London district, which is evacuation. That will not solve the question for the provincial towns.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: This Clause speaks of the Secretary of State approving, with or without modifications, schemes which may be prepared by local authorities, but the Secretary of State has not indicated what he is prepared to approve in the schemes. What is in the mind of the Department as to what they would accept in a scheme for air-raid precautions submitted by a local authority? We have found nothing in this Clause which will satisfy the minds of the families of this country. When the suggestions with regard to the use of paper and glass are read to-morrow, they will not give the people much hope that there will be a scheme to save them in the event of an air raid. The paper that may be attached to the window is not likely to be any protection against high explosives. Would the Department be prepared to approve under this Clause the construction of underground shelters in order that people may be protected from the worst effects of air raids? These have been prepared on the Continent for the last four or five years. Some civil engineers on the Continent circularised individuals in this country four or five years ago, asking if they were prepared to have, either for their own homes or for their working establishments, underground places where people might go.
The suggestion in these circulars was that people must be prepared to resort to the shelters for periods of three days, and even as much as 14 days, in the event of a certain gas being used.
Would the Government approve a scheme under which the gas masks were retained in a certain place rather than that people should have them at their disposal so that they could take them to and from work? Is it proposed that children should carry their masks to school lest an air raid takes place during school hours? I am sure that we shall not be given notice of an air raid and enemy aircraft will not wait until the children have released from school. People who resort to air raids have little regard for human life and certainly no respect for children. Will there be in these schemes conditions to enable gas masks and sandbags to be kept in the schools and factories? I am not happy that the Home Office will issue instructions and approve schemes which will be satisfactory. When one see:, the elementary way in which the Home Office suggests fire precautions for schools and public buildings, particularly in places outside London, I do not feel that they will work these schemes so that they will be effective in saving the lives of the people. Is it their intention to see where it is essential for plans to be adopted for removing the people? The word "evacuation" has been used. There are few parts of the country which will not be in danger, because the manufacture of our munitions is distributed over many areas, and an aeroplane will have to travel only a further 50 or 100 miles in order to reach them.
I hope that regard will be paid to provincial towns. Many of them have open country around them. In my own constituency of Rochdale there is a great deal of open space round the town, which is built in a valley. Is it the intention of the Home Secretary to insist upon a scheme being prepared under which the people of Rochdale may be removed to the open country if there is an air raid; or in the case of Manchester, where greater distances will have to be travelled before the people can reach open country? As to London, there has been talk of removing the population from the neighbourhood of the docks, Woolwich Arsenal and other great factories, because although London is usually spoken of as a


great distributing centre, it is the greatest manufacturing centre in the whole country. There are between 1,000 and 1,500 engineering works within the area which we speak of as London and, as has been suggested, they may become targets.
What are the local councils to be asked to do? Are they to remove the people? How can they be removed from this great area of London, and where are they going to be removed to? Can we move a million people, or even a population of 300,000 from one of the boroughs? Where could we remove the people from Poplar and the district round about the docks, or from Bermondsey or Deptford or Woolwich? What is the Secretary of State prepared to approve, and what is he prepared to put into schemes if he modifies them? I hope he will not curtail any proposals suggested by local authorities. The use of the word "modification" has a curious significance. What is in his mind as to protecting people in the event of these barbarous attacks by so-called civilised countries?
We have not heard anything which should make us feel content with the condition of things, and I hope we shall have some statement from the Government, and not merely a suggestion that the Secretary of State may think along these lines or along those lines in the months ahead. Have the Government made up their minds what they intend to do? I hope that the Secretary of State and his colleagues and the Government will not merely wait for schemes to come along, but will try to persuade the nations which engage in these air raids that such barbarous methods are not a civilised proceeding.

5.35 p.m.

Sir William Davison: I wish to say a word or two on the question of evacuation and panic. I endorse the statement of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) that evacuation on any large scale is an impossibility. Further, it would create panic. If we were even to start making arrangements for evacuating tens of thousands of the population they would be on the qui vive to get on the move immediately there was a rumour of an air raid and before the roads got blocked. The only way to deal with air raids in a great city like London is for the people to "stay put," as far as possible. On this question of panic I should like to say that I was Mayor of Kensington

during the War and saw a number of air raids, and in the West of London there was never the slightest sign of panic. On one occasion when there was an air raid I was with my wife in Kensington Town Hall. There was a good deal of firing by anti-aircraft guns. The town hall was pretty full, but the people went on talking and saying very much what people say when there is a heavy thunderstorm with torrents of rain, and that is, "I wonder when it will be over. It is very annoying; we have got to get to such-and-such a place." Certainly there was no panic. It was an air raid lasting an hour or so, and before the "All Clear" signal came my wife said to me, "I think we can go." I said, "Yes, I think we can," and we walked up Church Street to Notting Hill Gate. There were no cabs or omnibuses on the move, and as far as I could see nearly everyone was indoors. At Notting Hill Gate the anti-aircraft guns began firing, and as we went towards where we lived in Kensington Park Gardens a number of shells burst above our heads, although we could not see the German aircraft. A number of other people were walking along at the same time. We quickened our pace, certainly, until we got home, and I think that was the only wise thing to do, but there was no sign of panic.
It may be said that that was not a very dangerous district. All I can say is that a few nights afterwards a bomb fell in the gardens of the next street but one to where I was living and made a hole about the size of a taxi-cab. It blew the railings of the house right over the roof and they fell into the street on the other side. It was my duty to inquire into such things and I was there about half an hour afterwards. [Interruption.] Well, I was not there at the time, or I should not have been here now.

The Deputy-Chairman: All this is very interesting, but I fail to see what it has to do with the question of the action to be taken by local authorities.

Sir W. Davison: I am dealing with evacuation, which is one of the matters which local authorities have to consider. I am saying that I have seen no signs of panic on the occasion of an air raid. Of course, if one of these bombs falls upon a house all the occupants will be "done for," in all probability. The best thing to do is to hope and pray that the bomb


does not fall on your house; it is no good rushing down the street to try to get into an air-raid shelter. I was in Kensington Town Hall on the occasion of the famous daylight air raid and the Civil Commissioner came to my room and said, "Come and see these German aeroplanes." There were about 12 of them.

The Deputy-Chairman: I fail to see the connection between the speech of the hon. Member and the question before the Committee.

Sir W. Davison: Am I not entitled to show that there is no danger of panic, and that therefore any large-scale evacuation of the people from a district is undesirable? It seems to me that it is pertinent, but if, Captain Bourne, you do not desire me to proceed on those lines I shall not do so. I consider that there will be no danger of panic, that the people of London will view things philosophically, as did our men in the trenches, and take their risks. Let us take all reasonable precautions, but do not let the Government evacuate large numbers of the population. They need have no fear that people will lose their heads provided they are given gas masks and all reasonable precautions are taken to ensure their safety in their own homes, where it is best for them to be.

5.42 p.m

Mr. Montague: This Clause is a most important one, and I do not think we ought to give any indication that the Debate should close at this point, or be anywhere near closing. Some time ought to be given to the consideration of the measures which local authorities may indicate to the Government as a means of protection, not only against actual air-raids but against the possibilities of panic. The question of panic in London is an exceedingly important one. The Under-Secretary in his speech on Second Reading made a statement about the gas-proofing of rooms, which has already been referred to, but one aspect of the matter has not yet been touched upon, and perhaps has not occurred to hon. Members. The Under-Secretary spoke of gas-proofing rooms by means of paper pasted over cracks and crevices, rags placed over the doors, at the bottom of doors and in the framework of the windows, and sacks and rags pushed up chimney flues. He suggested that this could be

easily done, and in a very short space of time, and would be very effective. He even went so far as to say that it would be effective where one room constituted the home of a family.
The use of high explosives and the effect of concussion on windows has been mentioned, and I have no doubt that it would occur to air raiders to drop a number of high explosive shells before a gas attack with the object of shattering windows. It has been suggested that a raid would be of one kind or the other, but as high explosives will cause great breakage of windows I imagine that any air-raid will begin with a discharge of high explosives. There is one aspect of this matter of which the Under-Secretary of State has probably never thought, because he does not know at first hand how the poor live.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I hope the hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting, but I cannot permit that observation to go without comment. I represent an industrial constituency in the heart of Birmingham and I have been intimate with the living conditions of the poor for a long time.

Mr. Montague: That was why I was very careful to say "at first hand." It is one thing to live among people as a Member of Parliament, in a settlement or that kind of thing—I have met a good many people, such as the Bishop of London and others, who did it—and it is quite another actually to live with people in the poverty-stricken districts and to know their psychology, which is the result of the way they live. One thing which must have impressed the Under-Secretary of State in Birmingham as elsewhere, is that a great deal of time is spent out of doors by members of families who live in congested districts, as do millions of people. They live either in one-roomed tenements or, with a reasonably-sized family, in two or three rooms. That does not apply to the mother who, apart from her shopping or unless she has to go to work, as a rule has a great deal to do in the home. She would probably be there, and not away from home.
Suppose an air raid is about to take place, and a warning has been given. Perhaps Annie will have been sent down to the market to get some things in for


supper, and, like Mord Em'ly in Pett Ridge's story, may have been attracted by the Walworth Road people selling merchandise, or by the shops in Salmon Lane or somewhere else, and she may not be home. Johnny and Tommy may be goodness knows where, playing in the streets. The husband, if he is not actually at work, may be at a trade union branch. Does the Under-Secretary of State or anyone else imagine that that mother will begin to paste paper over the doors?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member appears to be making a Second Reading speech. I have been waiting carefully to connect his argument with the object of the Clause under discussion, which relates to the schemes which local authorities may submit to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Montague: I have upon the Order Paper an Amendment which was not accepted. I submit that we were assured by Mr. Speaker that the Debate upon the Clause standing part of the Bill would be wide enough to cover matters ancillary, at any rate, to the question of the methods of dealing with air raids and relating to what local authorities might do, or suggest that the Government might do, generally, with respect to their duty.

The Deputy-Chairman: I would point out to the hon. Member that the discussion on Clause I went very much wider than we had expected before the discussion took place, and, in point of fact, covered all the points he mentions. Consequently, we have now got to the point when we cannot repeat the arguments which were advanced in the discussion on Clause 1.

Mr. Montague: May I ask for your Ruling on the matter? It is useless for us to speak as we desire to do if your Ruling is to be interpreted as it appears it should be. Apart from what I just said, I wanted to deal with the use of London tubes and dug-outs in London, and with some experiences that I had on the Western Front of dug-outs and so forth. If I am not allowed to speak on those subjects I might as well finish my speech at once.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Clause lays down what may be developed by local

authorities in their schemes for submission to the Secretary of State, and what conditions the Secretary of State may ask local authorities to develop in connection with those schemes. Obviously the hon. Member would be in order in arguing that it would be undesirable in London for local authorities to submit schemes which did not contain a provision for dug-outs, but he must connect his argument to what might be included in a local authority's scheme, and whether its being included or not is a reason why the Secretary of State should or should not accept it. Further than that he cannot go.

Mr. Dalton: May I also ask for your guidance? My hon. Friend was developing an argument relating to the gas-proofing of rooms. Would it riot be in order under the Ruling which you have just given for him to proceed along that line with a view to showing that this particular form of protection is useless, having regard to the habits of working-class life, and to connect with that an argument in favour of other forms of protection, such as dug-outs?

The Deputy-Chairman: That might be in order, if the hon. Gentleman proceeded on those lines.

Mr. Montague: I assure you, Captain Bourne, that I shall do my best to keep in order in what I have to say, although at such times and on such subjects it is not quite an easy thing to do, as the progress of the Debate has shown. I intended to point out that it is necessary that more drastic methods be submitted by local authorities for dealing with air-raid conditions than those which are already under canvass and discussion, in connection with gas-proofed rooms and in some other connections. I referred particularly to the general habits of people living in congested districts in order to submit that the proposals made are entirely inadequate and that other proposals must be substituted. I suggested that a mother would not seal herself in a gas-proofed room while her family was not there with her. That is an important consideration. I will leave that particular matter.
The question of congestion in the East End of London is important because, as has been so frequently said, one of the great objectives of the enemy in any air raid would be the docks district, such


as Limehouse, Poplar and the neighbourhood. I do not believe that the expectation that people will go into their overcrowded rooms will be realised in those districts. People will come out of their homes, if only to collect their families, and they will seek cover of some other kind. What will happen to Blackwall Tunnel in those conditions? I expect that people will crowd into Blackwall Tunnel and will attempt to crowd into the tubes. I do not at all understand why it is suggested so often that tubes shall not be used during an air raid. I believe it is even to be a matter of regulation. Tubes constitute the finest possible sort of funk-hole that you could have. The expression is not a derogatory one. Every dug-out in the front line trenches was a funk-hole. If it is true that armour-piercing shells will not be used upon the civil population but will he reserved for their proper purposes, warships and objectives like docks, the tubes of London will be a splendid method of protecting the people against the ordinary high explosive shell.
It has been pointed out that the experiences of the last War showed that people became rather panic-stricken. In some places there were terrible scenes. People were killed or injured in rushing to the tubes. That kind of thing could be avoided if proper regulations were submitted by local authorities to the Government and were carried out. We should be discussing with local authorities this aspect of the matter long before the likelihood of a war. Similarly with the question of the air inside the tubes; that is a matter with which our scientists ought to deal. It ought to be possible so to condition the air and ventilate the tubes as to make it possible for people to live there at least as long as they would be able to live in a room sealed with paper and sacks, under conditions of air-raid precaution. Whatever methods are thought out and submitted for approval, there is also the question of organising the people to use them. If tubes are to be used, everybody must know which tube to go to, if one is near, and the matter should be organised beforehand in order to avoid panic. Not only should tubes be used, but public buildings and depots of any kind, of which there are many in London. It should be possible to build shelters quite cheaply to give

protection against the ordinary high explosive shell.
The gas bomb is not the same thing as cloud gas. I had experience of both kinds during the War. I hope I may give a little historical touch to this point without transgressing the Rules of Order. I remember coming out of Charing Cross Station during the last War, having left the Ypres salient, and finding the whole population underground. I did not know what had happened at first. I did not expect anything of the kind, and I walked from Charing Cross Station to the Piccadilly Tube in the middle of the road. I saw policemen looking round corners and out of doorways, wondering what kind of an idiot in military uniform this was. I had lived in a communication trench in the Ypres salient during one of the strongest strafes we had had during the period when I was there, but that night only two bombs were dropped upon London, while bombs were dropping by scores every 200 or 300 yards in the place from which I had come.
The question which arises out of that comparison is whether anything has been done about using trenches on the outskirts of London. Every ex-service man and soldier knows that the narrow communication trench is one of the best safeguards, at least against the high explosive shell, and certainly against gas. There is no danger, unless there is a direct hit upon that trench. All these matters, evacuation, the possibility of entrenching the outskirts of London and many others, ought to be considered and not to be entirely neglected. I have seen gas shells. I have had them as near to me as the door of this Chamber now is, and I have not been perturbed in the slightest degree. I do not know what development there has been in regard to gas since that time, but I do not think there has been so very much, and I know that the effects of gas bombs, as distinct from clouds of gas with the wind behind them, are of a very local character.
I suggest, therefore, that the important considerations are evacuation, entrenchment, the use of the Tubes, and the building of shelters under public buildings of all kinds, schools in particular, with some method of approach by which people could go down. I know, of course, that not even these methods will suffice in the case of a direct hit from a high explosive


shell of great magnitude. One remembers what happened when the machinery fell in a large printing works near Drury Lane. But that will happen anyhow. In the ordinary way it should be possible to afford protection to people by some kind of device involving very much less than three feet of concrete. It cannot be expected that people living in overcrowded and congested conditions, as is the case with the majority of people in, say, the East End of London, will for the next five years, until the war comes, keep carefully on their shelves these strips of paper, buckets, sand and so on, all ready. That kind of thing simply will not happen. If the Under-Secretary knew what a working-class family is like, he would realise that, long before that, these strips of paper will probably have been used for making Christmas chains.
What is meant by dealing with thermite bombs? I am told that thermite bombs burn with a terrible degree of heat. During the Belgian manoeuvres in 1934, one small aeroplane full of thermite bombs, with which it hit bodies created for the manoeuvres—shacks, straw and so on—started over 300 fires. Imagine a thermite bomb shot into a tenement house. Imagine the whole family there—not separated, as I suggest it is most likely that they would be, with the mother looking for them. After the room has been sealed up, the thermite bomb comes, and somebody wants to know where the sand is, what has happened to the shovel, and all that kind of thing. So far as the hose-pipe is concerned, the tap is probably down below, and the room has to be unsealed. It will probably be found that the handle of the shovel is broken and is outside, and they will do some kind of war dance around the bomb, which is burning in the middle of the room, waiting for all these preparations to be carried out.
It really is ridiculous. It is the jest of the moment. People are joking and laughing about these proposals, and I think it will be found that they will afford the pantomimes a very useful gag. Every Widow Twankey and Mrs. Crusoe will make her first appearance armed with a bucket of water and some sand. She will drop one article, and, while picking it up, will drop the other, soliloquising all the time about the merits of her first husband, who will be the spit either of

the Under-Secretary or the Prime Minister. Although it is a matter of humour and a joke, I am quite serious in referring to it, because it is very dangerous that people should be lulled into the idea that they are being protected by measures of this kind, when we ought to get together the best brains possible, people who understand every aspect of this subject, in order to devise a scheme which is not only practical in itself, but is in line with the facts of the case, with the lives of the people, and with security for British men and women.

6.7 p.m.

Sir John Withers: I have been sitting here for a considerable time listening to everybody talking about the details of these schemes. I understand that we are discussing the question whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill, and Clause 3 provides that:
The Secretary of State may approve, with or without modifications, any air-raid precaution scheme submitted to him under this Act.
This is not a case for talking about details. Different areas, like Manchester and London, the works of armament firms, and so on, will all have to be dealt with on different lines. I should have thought that the obvious thing to do was that, before these schemes are sent in at all, instructions should be issued to each area indicating the sort of scheme that should be sent in. Then it would be for the local body to consider the details, and for the Home Office to look into the schemes and see whether they are good or bad, and, if necessary, supplement them in some way or other. I sincerely hope that, on the question of Clause 3 standing part of the Bill, we are not going into details again and again. The Chairman of the Committee recently pulled up every Member on this point—

Mr. Kelly: He did not pull up every Member.

Sir J. Withers: He ought to have done.

Mr. Kelly: That is criticising the Chair.

Sir J. Withers: I do not think the Debate ought to proceed on those lines.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I want to congratulate you, Sir Dennis, on the latitude you have shown in not pulling up speakers for departing from the terms of


the Clause. I have sat here very patiently, not only because I desired to speak, but because I sincerely hoped to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland, who was on the bench and who acted in such an enthusiastic manner that I assumed that he would be replying to the Debate. The Under-Secretary also was here, but now they have both disappeared and we are left with the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs to deal with the matter. I am anxious with regard to evacuation, and I think it was rather unfortunate that an hon. Member on my left, who spoke earlier, was pulled up because of his remarks on this question. The Clause says:
The Secretary of State may approve, with or without modifications, any air-raid precaution scheme submitted to him under this Act.
I would like to know how the Home Department, or the Secretary of State himself, is going to decide on the schemes submitted by local authorities, who know the area and know the needs of the local people. What person or committee is qualified to discuss schemes submitted by the local authorities? It may be that some committee in the Scottish Office is contemplated. Is it the Secretary of State himself, or the advisory experts of the Department; or is some committee to be formed to advise the Government and to decide, when schemes are submitted by local authorities like those of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Kirkcaldy and so on, whether modifications shall be made in those schemes or not? On what will their decision be based? Will it be based on the question of obtaining sufficient labour or sufficient man-power in the areas concerned, or on the question of expense? Those are very important questions to the local authorities. In my humble opinion, the local authorities in Glasgow could submit very easily a more practicable scheme of evacuation than could be framed by authorities in London. The right hon. Gentleman himself will realise that it is only about three-quarters of an hour's charabanc ride from Glasgow to the great loch area, where there is ample room for measures to be taken by a local authority in or near Glasgow for evacuating the local people, or at any rate the women and children. I would like some indication from the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Under-Secretary

as to who or which committee will have the power to decide on these schemes which are to be submitted by local authorities.
As the Bill is at present constituted, local authorities cannot discuss the question of evacuation in, for instance, Glasgow. Recently the Glasgow authorities submitted a definite scheme with regard to Loch Katrine. Loch Katrine furnishes the water supply for the whole of the Glasgow area. It supplies the water for the great shipyards that will be required in any future war; it provides the water supply for over 1,000,000 people in the Glasgow area, and for the great heavy industries in that area. A scheme was submitted, over which great pains were taken, for duplicating Loch Katrine, so as to provide an alternative loch. That scheme was turned down by the authorities here. They said that this loch, being situated on the edge of a cliff, was not really a good mark for bombs. I think that that was the implication of the reply. That is the reply that is given to-day, when bombers are able to hit a mark from a height of 2,000 feet, and hit it very effectively. What is to happen to a scheme submitted on behalf of a local authority in one area, but affecting an area outside the geographical scope of that local authority? Loch Katrine is in the Trossachs. Glasgow has submitted this scheme with regard to its water supply, and it has been turned down. I want to know who are the experts who will turn down or modify or allow such schemes by local authorities, who are the best people and the most fitted, by their knowledge of their local areas, to draw up schemes.
I come to Glasgow again, with regard to the question of modifying schemes. Will there be some general plan laid down that local authorities with a certain population must accept? Will they be permitted to submit schemes? For instance, in Glasgow, as apart from certain other cities in the Midlands of England, there is the tenement question, the question of the congestion of the people inhabiting the areas. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman's own constituency, I think he will agree, is very much over crowded. Bridgeton, Govan, Maryhill and most of the constituencies in Glasgow are composed of huge tenement blocks, with hundreds of thousands of people living in such conditions, and the


circumstances there are different from those in some of the localities where the population is more widespread and is living in one or two-storeyed buildings, and any kind of bombing there would create more havoc. Will special consideration be given to areas such as Glasgow?
I do not want to refer to the financial question, as it is out of order, but the Scottish local authorities are very much concerned. They took an important part in the negotiations with regard to this Bill, and they were concerned with finance. Undoubtedly, the Glasgow Town Council, if they are going to give adequate protection for the people in Glasgow, will have to spend very much more in actual building: the building of shelters, for instance. No scheme could be put forward by the Glasgow Town Council to make the houses of Glasgow in any way effective as a shelter during future air raids. There is no practical scheme possible, and I defy any expert, technical engineer or adviser, to formulate a definite practical scheme, whether it be by sandbags—and you are going to have very great difficulty to provide sufficient sandbags.

The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): I really think the hon. Member is getting a long way beyond the Clause. He is quite justified in asking certain questions as to how the Government will deal with their task of approving schemes; but he is not justified in elaborating schemes of his own, or saying how a certain scheme is impossible.

Mr. Davidson: Very good, Sir Dennis, but I would point out that in previous stages of the Debate reference was made to methods, and sandbagging was mentioned.

The Chairman: Yes, but the hon. Member must take it from me that there is a certain limit to the extent to which schemes must be discussed.

Mr. Davidson: Very good; but my point is that the local authorities must have some indication of the Department's attitude. I am asking whether the Home Secretary or the Secretary for Scotland would approve a scheme, recommend a scheme, accept a scheme or modify a scheme; and could such a scheme as the sandbagging of tenements in the Glasgow area be made efficient? I have heard

reference in the Debate to the experiences of some hon. Members in the Army. I was a very young soldier and I had no very great experiences. I was in France when I was 17. It was suggested by the Noble Lord that if a bomb fell near this House hon. Members would be concerned in doing all they possibly could. That is true; but local authorities have to prepare schemes now and submit them to the Minister, not for bombs falling near their area, but for bombs falling in their area, which is a very different thing. Local authorities have to prepare schemes for dealing with what will certainly be great panic among the population. I would ask the Noble Lord, who may read what I say, although he is not here, to face up to the difficulties of the local authorities.
There is one other question. That is the question of how will the Minister look upon schemes submitted by a local authority which is completely convinced, as many Scottish local authorities are, that there are absolutely inadequate anti-aircraft defences in the country as it is. The London local authorities—I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will agree with me or not—can, at least, recognise that great schemes of anti-aircraft defence have been prepared to protect London, but Scottish local authorities are faced with a complete neglect of Scotland. Their schemes will have to be on a bigger scale. Will they be accepted if they are on a bigger scale? I am not making statements that Scottish local authorities cannot prove and cannot place in the forefront of every statement they make.

The Chairman: The hon. Member has been in order in asking questions about a scheme like that, but I do not think he can go on to make statements about whether in his opinion a particular area is protected or not.

Mr. Davidson: I recognise that it is not the Under-Secretary's area, but certain areas are tied to a certain expenditure, and, in my opinion, a minimum expenditure, and those local authorities will have to formulate schemes, taking into consideration the provision for defence around them. But I have said what I wanted to say, and perhaps, in the next five years, something will be done for Scotland, so far as defence is concerned. This Bill, and this Clause particularly, do not give the local authorities reason


for confidence in the Government, so far as any schemes for defence which they may submit are concerned. Yesterday we discussed the decrease of population; now we are discussing schemes for preventing the population from being wiped out. I would ask the Under-Secretary, who is a young man and who, during the time I have been a Member of this House, has received very great praise, to go very carefully into this, and to enable local authorities to have some confidence that the schemes they will submit will have some examination, and that not one definite line of action will be laid down, but that local authorities' own proposals will receive consideration in this very important question of adequate protection for their men, women and children during any future air raid.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: Several hon. Members have been ruled out of order because they started at the wrong end. They started at the Home Office, instead of with the local authorities' end. We have been told it is incumbent on the local authorities to prepare a scheme for submission to the Home Office. I wonder what those schemes will consist of, and how they will be prepared. I imagine they will draw up those schemes on the advice of their Air-Raid Precautions officers. I am not sure that the local authorities have the best advice for preparing these schemes which they are going to submit for the approval of the Home Office, and when they do submit them they are not sure they will not be modified.

The Chairman: The hon. Member may by now be getting into order, but he seems to have been discussing Clause I which lays upon local authorities the duty of preparing schemes. This Clause is the Clause which provides for these schemes having to be submitted after they have been drawn up.

Mr. Bellenger: I am glad you say I am getting into order, Sir Dennis. I have been endeavouring to follow the line on which hon. Members have been considered to be in order. I hope you will allow me to proceed, because I then hope to get your approval. The schemes have to be submitted to the Home Office. I maintain that the cannot be adequately prepared, and, therefore, the local authorities will not be able to fulfil their obligations

properly, because they have not the advice of the Air-Raids Precautions Department of the Home Office. I have asked whether any indication has been given to local authorities as to how they are to appoint Air-Raid Precautions officers.

The Chairman: I must rule that out of order. There is nothing in this Clause dealing with the Air-Raid Precautions officers.

Mr. Bellenger: With all due respect, Sir Dennis, I submit to you that if we are allowed to discuss Sub-section (1), which provides for local authorities submitting air-raid precautions schemes to the Home Office, we may discuss what those schemes are to consist of.

The Chairman: I have expressed my opinion that what the hon. Member was saying was not relevant to this Clause.

Mr. Bellenger: Very well, Sir Dennis, I must submit to your Ruling. I happen, like many others, to be a resident in the area of a local authority, and I should like an indication of what the schemes will consist when they are prepared, so that I can know how to take steps to protect my wife and children when the time comes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who is to reply will deal with the question, and will have more success in keeping in order than I have. May I put this further point, as I do not know whether it has been considered by local authorities? I live in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) where there are a large number of solidly-built houses with basements. What plans are the local authorities preparing to provide against the inundation of many of these basements which will probably occur when bombs fall on roads and break the water mains? I should say that there would be a good chance of people in these basements being drowned.
With regard to the adequacy of schemes which local authorities will have to apply, I am not at all sure that I have great faith in the methods which they will have to adopt for clearing away the effect of gas bombs. I, like other hon. Members of the House, attended the Falfield School of the Government, and saw the methods which they were adopting there for dealing with this menace. I have not much confidence in those methods. Whether


they are being adopted in other parts of the world or not, I do not know, but I certainly fear that if bombing takes place and that is the only method we have of dealing with gas bombs, we shall not get very much safety. I suppose that the question of evacuation will be something that the local authorities will have to consider. I have not the slightest faith in any schemes that could be prepared for evacuating large bodies of persons from one area to another, and I shall be interested to hear when the hon. Gentleman replies—that is, if he is in order—what he thinks of these evacuation proposals.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: On the Second Reading I described my attitude to the Bill. I felt that its provisions were largely illusory, and after hearing the discussion to-day I am more convinced than ever that the protection that is to be provided, for example, in sealing up the windows with adhesive tape and all the rest of it, will be simply to have no protection at all. To obtain really adequate protection you would have to go fairly deep down into the earth in big pits, and even then it would be scarcely safe, because if you went deep enough you would get the bombs from the Australian side. Unless the Government are able to change the shape of the air, or do something like that, I do not believe there is any adequate protection at all. Once long ago in connection with work schemes, the late Mr. Wheatley said that the only work scheme that he could see that would provide work would be a tunnel, and I wonder now whether the Government will not consider, as an additional precaution in this matter, the provision of a tunnel through to Australia into which the people may go when the bombers are overhead.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Broad: Before we part with this Clause, I should like to have some information as to what powers are to be imposed after a scheme, which may have been modified by the Secretary of State, has come into force. I have in mind particularly, not the people living in two, three or four-roomed tenements or a big house, as the case may be, but the big works, offices, retail establishments, institutions, and so on. There are some in my district where 2,000 or 3,000 workers are concerned. I should like to know whether, in a scheme drawn up by a local

authority, the local authority will be able to enforce their requirements upon the proprietors or occupiers of works of this kind? It will not be a question of keeping people at home. If you have a big works in the district and there is a great conflagration due to an incendiary bomb or a high explosive, just as in the case of a mining disaster, everybody will gather round looking for their men folk. Powers ought to be provided so that the responsible local authority could enforce their requirements upon these firms.
I am not going to deal with the inadequacy or adequacy of sticking stamp-edging round the windows and doors, or blocking up cracks in walls and ceilings with paper and paste, but I believe that so many dwellings are in such a condition that the inhabitants could not adequately protect a room according to the requirements or suggestions of the Minister. Will the scheme of the local authority enable them to impose provisions on the owners of such property to see that some protection is given? Though the provision of stamp-edging and all the rest of it may make a room gas-proof, what about the people in the room? If they are to have any heating or lighting for cooking or warmth in these rooms, they must have some means of illumination and heat which does not consume the oxygen in the room. One incandescent gas burner will consume more oxygen than five people. In a room of 600 cubic feet, 18 feet by 10 feet by 8 feet, there must be some means provided of lighting and heating. The only way of introducing lighting and heating that does not consume oxygen is by using electricity. You must provide in advance that there shall be electric light and heating in one of the rooms, and the scheme of the local authority ought to make provision for that eventuality. How are people to breathe if they have fires or gas consuming the oxygen in the room and all the crevices are sealed up?

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: My first duty is to convey to the Committee the apologies of my right hon. Friend for not being in his place this afternoon, but, unfortunately, he contracted a chill when he was being installed as Chancellor of Reading University yesterday, and he is in bed with a temperature this afternoon. He asked me to convey to the Committee his apologies for his absence.
We at the Home Office welcome this discussion this afternoon for two reasons. First of all, because it gives us an opportunity at the beginning of removing a misconception. I refer particularly to the Amendment that might have been moved, if it had been in order, by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague). That was an Amendment providing for security without any qualification. We welcome the opportunity of saying that complete security in air raids is not possible, and we deprecate very much any pretence or liability on the part of anybody to deceive the people of this country either one way or the other—either by minimising or exaggerating the effect of air raids. I think that the matter can be put in the best way by referring to the actual Title of the Bill which is stated to be for
the protection of persons and property from injury or damage in the event of hostile attack from the air.
Obviously, we have to consider this matter in the light of common sense and our object, as was stated by my right hon. Friend and myself on the Second Reading, is to take all reasonable precautions that ought to be taken at the present time, and to let the people have the knowledge of what precautions ought to be taken in the event of war. The Committee will agree that we must observe due proportion in this matter. We must do all that is reasonably possible, but also we must avoid a complete obsession of the whole national mind with the subject of air-raid precautions to the point, for example, of absorbing for air-raid defence alone the whole of the money allocated to Defence expenditure. The cost of active and other defence must be borne in mind, for if some of the extreme suggestions were carried out it would really cause the occupation of almost the entire population in perfecting air-raid precautions. I think that everybody will agree that we have to observe due proportion.
I hope to deal with a number of the larger points raised, but first I will deal with two of the specific points brought forward by hon. Members this afternoon. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) wished to know whether the Home Office would consult the Air Ministry in the event of evacuation. I can assure the hon. Member that the

Home Office will certainly act in cooperation with all the chief Government Departments in this matter, and, obviously, the opinion of the Air Ministry will have an important bearing upon this question. I would inform the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) that the position with regard to the approval of schemes in Scotland and in England is that they are approved in each country by the appropriate Secretary of State—in Scotland by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and in England by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Of course, they are both advised by the central body of experts in the Air-Raid Precautions Department. I can assure him that there is no intention whatever of riding roughshod over local susceptibilities and ideas. It is necessary to have complete consultation with local authorities and those concerned in various matters, and it is vital in regard to air-raid precautions. We are now able to do it rather better than we have been able to do it in the past, because only recently we have appointed 13 regional inspectors, and these inspectors being situated with their headquarters in particular districts, will be in a better position to maintain a continuous liaison with the local authorities.

Mr. Davidson: When the Glasgow local authority submitted a scheme for the duplication of the water supply of that area, was the financial expert who turned down that scheme the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for England?

Mr. Lloyd: It was in accordance with what I have said, formally by the Secretary of State for Scotland, but acting on advice received from the Air-Raid Precautions Department. That brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) with regard to categories. I appreciate the importance of what he said on the matter, and I suggest that the process of submitting schemes by local authorities in consultation with the Home Office experts and their approval by the Secretary of State will, in fact, result in the graduation of different schemes to suit local needs, not necessarily one or four or 15 categories but a great number of categories.
The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) was sceptical of the value of


black-outs from the point of view of safeguarding civilian objectives. He granted that they may be useful to mislead hostile aircraft as to military objectives within a town, but he doubted its usefulness from the point of view of the civil population. We do not take that view. We take the view that black-outs are useful from the point of view of the civil population, because it is not so easy for hostile aeroplanes to be certain of their direction and to find their objective at night. They have to rely on dead reckoning to do that. It is too dangerous for an enemy aeroplane to be in wireless communication with its home base because that would give away its position to the defenders. They have to rely on dead reckoning, and that depends on a knowledge of meteorological conditions, the direction of the higher winds in which you are flying, which is information that hostile aeroplanes are not likely to have about weather conditions in the country in which they are operating. I am advised that it is easy for them to be misled, particularly if they cannot pick out well-known landmarks, and that black-outs are of great assistance. Grimsby and Norwich are towns which by their position are rather open to air attack, yet in the last War they completely avoided all raids as a result of efficient black-outs. It may be argued that technical invention has improved, but I am told that in the blackout which was held in Chatham recently the aeroplanes, as a result of a slight mist, completely lost their way, and were not even able to find the Thames. I think it would be very wrong for the Committee to take the view that black-outs are not valuable from the point of view of the civilian population.
Now I come to gas-proof rooms, about which there have been a great many suggestions. The hon. Member for West Islington, from his knowledge of working-class life, suggested that a mother might be alone, the children away, at any rate that the husband might not be there, and that in those circumstances a mother would not be prepared to seal herself in a gas-proof room without her family. I agree that that is a problem. The mother herself may be washing that day, and the children may be further away, or playing in the yard or in the street. But I suggest that in war time the population will be living in the knowledge that air raids may occur, they will be well

instructed and well aware of the warning system, and little Johnny and little Tommy will certainly know it from their mother if there is an air raid warning and they do not get back by the right time, or if they have strayed too far from the house. The answer to this problem, which I agree is a very human one, is the answer which applies to so many of the problems raised on this matter, that people will adapt themselves to an astonishing extent, and in accordance with common sense when they have to face these new circumstances.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. McEntee) was anxious to know whether the experiments which were carried out on the kiosks which he saw at Falfield were different from those on an ordinary house. The buildings were simply for demonstration purposes; they were handy and small, for the purpose of teaching. The experiments which the Government have carried out are described in an interesting document which was issued over the week-end in accordance with the reply given to a question by the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest). These experiments were carried out on houses which, as far as possible, were similar to an ordinary working-class house in our great cities.

Mr. Broad: Is that document obtainable in the Vote Office?

Mr. Lloyd: We have made a number of copies available to hon. Members in the Library.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Do we understand that there are other experiments besides those which were carried out on Salisbury Plain?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes. They are described with a certain amount of detail in the document, but they are only part of a long series of experiments carried out by the Government using actual war gas. There has been some criticism on the point that it would be wise to experiment with houses in a built-up area. Although we have been looking for a built-up area on which to release several tons of poison gas, we have not yet succeeded in finding one, and I think it will be a long time before we do. Arrangements for the experiment in regard to the position of the cottage and belts of trees were made to assimilate


as closely as possible to conditions in built-up areas, and we are conducting a series of experiments in built-up areas as to the movement of wind in the streets, which is very important from the point of view of gas defence.
Now I come to the question of windows. The hon. Member for Derby said this was very important from the point of view of gas-proofing a room. I agree it is important, but it is not final. He suggested that the effect of bombs would be to shatter all windows in a particular area and, of course, a certain number would be shattered. The most modern report we have on this matter from Spain is to the effect that if windows are protected by strips of paper, ordinary paper, pasted across the back of the window they will resist the effect of blast to an astonishing extent. It has been found that all windows which were unassisted by strips of paper were blown in at a distance of 150 yards from a bomb, but with this protection, which, normally speaking, the lay mind would consider to be rather inadequate, the windows remained whole up to 50 yards from the bomb. That is one example of the rather mysterious effects of blast and stresses, and it shows how important it is to continue with the experiments which the Government have in hand. It may be newspaper or brown paper, whichever is available, but cellophane, of course, is the ideal thing. It may be bought now cheaply at the chain stores, but if it is not possible to afford that, working-class people can collect cellophane from the almost endless packets of food and cigarettes and so on, and it is equally effective.
Now I come to the question of what happens if the window is blown out. There is still the protection of the blanket. The room will still be gas-proof to a reasonable extent if the blanket remains in position, and more particularly—I hesitate to give this advice which will go rather against the grain of the housewife—if the blanket is treated with a certain amount of water you greatly increase its gas-excluding qualities. But if that protection goes, what is the position? The gas-proofing of a room has always been described as the first line of defence. There is a second line of defence—the respirator which is provided for that purpose. If the first line of defence is

broken, the householder can fall back on the respirator which is given him for the purpose of escaping from his gas-proof room, if it is damaged, to another place of safety. This he cannot do without the respirator, but he can do it in the case of any gas known in war with the civilian respirator issued by the Home Office.
This brings me to the question of gas and gas warfare. The hon. Member for Derby was inclined to be suspicious of the Government because of the attention it has given to gas and he suggested it was because it would have the greatest effect on the public mind. I can tell him quite simply that that is not the reason. The reason is this. Gas was never used in the last War against the civilian population. Gas against the civilian population on a large-scale is an unknown weapon, an unknown problem to the man and woman in the street. Therefore, it is liable to cause a particular degree of apprehension, and indeed rightly if the population is uninstructed with regard to the problems of gas, and unprovided with the particular type of appliance, namely, a respirator, which is capable of defending the population against gas, and which, in virtue of its technical nature, it would be impossible for the man-in-the-street to improvise for himself in the moment of danger. That is the reason why the Government had to give the gas problem a particular degree of priority, and I think the Committee will agree, having regard to these facts, that the Government are well justified in doing so.
Adverse comments have been made on the efficiency of the respirators by the hon. Member for Derby, based on the fact that tobacco smoke can be smelt through the respirator. That is true, but I suggest that because tobacco smoke, which is not a true gas at all, can be smelt through the respirators, it does not follow therefore that arsenical smoke would get through the respirator. The point is that the Government have tested it against the most poisonous gases with complete success. The hon. Member referred to the fitting of the respirator, and I agree that that is important. He said that he had received a letter from a colonel—I am surprised that a colonel should write to the hon. Member—

Mr. Noel-Baker: I said it was a letter in the "Times."

Mr. Lloyd: I apologise, but we are not unfamiliar with the problem of the impatient colonel.

Mr. Noel-Baker: This was a letter discussing his duties in the case of an air-raid warning.

Mr. Lloyd: The fact that a colonel is an air-raid officer does not necessarily alter his temperament. If the colonel had waited a little and familiarised himself with the plans of the Home Office with regard to respirators, or consulted the Records of this House, he would have known that it is the intention of the Home Office to elaborate a very complex scheme to deal with the enormous problem of the fitting and distribution of millions of respirators to the civilian population. It is an enormous problem. We have carried out an elaborate experiment with the co-operation of the local authorities, in which the actual plans have been worked out for the local depots with about 30,000 gas masks each, and for about 30 smaller depots with about 5,000 gas masks each, from which the air-raid wardens will distribute the respirators to the people themselves. It will be the duty of the air-raid wardens in time of peace to find out from all these districts the exact number of respirators that will be required.
The hon. Gentleman also asked a question with regard to repairs and refills. We have had a great success with the production of a civilian respirator in that, although we started out with an estimated production of 500,000 a week, we have got the production up to 650,000 a week. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that once our stock is complete we shall have these factories in reserve, and we shall be able to produce in time of war at the rate of 650,000 respirators a week for the purpose of refills and refits, and so on. I think he will agree that that will probably be adequate.
I come to the question of sandbags and high explosives. The hon. Member for Derby suggested that really the refuge room could not be used all the time for the purpose of living in, as I suggested in the Second Reading Debate that it could be.

Mr. Davidson: On a point of Order. I have been listening closely to the Under-Secretary in raising this very interesting

question. But many hon. Members on these benches were definitely and completely ruled out of order time and again when we tried to raise the point to which the Under-Secretary is now replying. I would like to know why the Under-Secretary is allowed to make statements on questions with which we were not allowed to deal.

The Chairman: I do not myself quite see how the Under-Secretary can answer questions which were not asked. I have followed him closely, and if I thought he had been out of order I should have said so.

Mr. Bellenger: We attempted to put questions to the hon. Gentleman and to elaborate them, but we were pulled up in doing so.

The Chairman: I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I did not notice that he was out of order.

Mr. Davidson: May I point out that when I raised the question with regard to sandbags and the plans of local authorities to prepare sandbagging precautions for tenements in Glasgow, I was ruled out of order.

The Chairman: Does the hon. Member suggest that he was ruled out of order by me?

Mr. Davidson: I am not making any suggestions of unfairness from the Chair, but I am suggesting that the Chair should be a little more careful in its Rulings.

The Chairman: In the interests of hon. Members themselves, I must really ask them to adhere a little more closely to the Rules in these questions of order which are put to the Chair.

Mr. Lloyd: I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby would wish me to deal with questions that were raised as to whether the Secretary of State ought to approve schemes involving the use of trenches, or whether the local authorities should put up schemes. That I think would be in order. The Member for West Islington asked a question in regard to that. He wanted to know why we had not considered the question of trenches. The real answer is that we have considered the question of trenches, and in great detail. I hold in my hand a handbook in which not only are many pages devoted to the question of trenches, but there are plans showing in great detail


the best form of trench in the view of the experts. Investigations were made by the Home Office, and indeed we do consider that in appropriate circumstances—because we have to remember that the circumstances may differ in different cases—trenches may be one of the very best methods of protection.

Mr. McEntee: Is the pamphlet from which the hon. Gentleman is quoting available to Members?

Mr. Lloyd: It is the Air-Raids Precautions Handbook No. 6—the first edition—published by the Stationery Office. On the question of the tubes, I am afraid that there I could not agree with the hon. Member for West Islington, because we have come to the conclusion that it is not wise to use the tubes for air-raid shelters in a future war. Quite apart from the difficulty of deciding who ought to go into the tubes in particular circumstances—a problem which becomes rather acute in difficult times—there is the fact that the tube stations are not now considered to be bomb-proof. If the hon. Gentleman will consider the actual construction of a tube station he will see that probably it is not bomb proof. As to the question of putting people into the tubes themselves, I think the Committee will immediately appreciate the grave dangers of panic and also the physical dangers of the blocking of the exits by direct hits on stations, involving conditions of the most terrible gravity. It happens that some of the main sewers of London run in close contiguity to some of the tube stations, and we are informed on expert advice that there would be a grave danger of flooding with sewage in the case of a direct hit.
I ought now to pass to the one other subject which, I think, gave hon. Members a good deal of concern, and that was the question of incendiary bombs. I think almost every other hon. Member who spoke this afternoon mentioned that question. First the question was raised by the hon. Member for West Islington as to whether the equipment was going to be of any use. He gave an alarming picture of the humour with which the public would regard the scoops and sand containers, and how they would behave if a bomb actually fell. He said the pantomimes would be filled with Widow Twankeys using the scoops recommended by my right hon. Friend. The fact that

a thing is regarded as humorous in a pantomime and causes the public to laugh uproariously does not mean that the British public are not going to use their common sense and take the thing quite seriously in a difficult moment. The man in blue is one of the most typical figures in the pantomimes and we all enjoy his antics very much, but that does not prevent our having the very greatest respect for the policeman and for the truncheon, which in the last resort he is permitted to use, if we come across him in different circumstances altogether.
I think I ought to refer again to the question of the experiments which the Home Office conducted in a great deal of detail to find out whether or not these incendiary bombs could be handled by members of the public with the scoop and sand container and hand pump recommended by the Home Office. I would like to give the Committee just a few details of one of the experiments. A one kilo incendiary bomb was placed in a room on the ground level. There were a bed, a table and curtains in the room. The bomb was placed about the centre of the room on the wooden floor about a foot away from the bed. Sixty seconds after the bomb was fired the curtains had been destroyed, and the bed was burning, but not fiercely. The chair had just caught and the floors were burning. Orders were given to get to work. The girl—these experiments were carried out by girls—went in with a line of hose from the bantam pump. She discarded her glasses—for almost at once the eye-pieces of the glasses got fogged, and she discarded the glasses—and it was found actually that the fumes and smoke in the incendiary bomb made the glasses unnecessary in the work of controlling the pump. So far as the result was concerned, the fire was controlled in 2 minutes 20 seconds, and the bomb was extinguished in 2 minutes 30 seconds. About one and a half gallons of water were used and less than 30 lbs. of sand, and I understand that in each case these young ladies were submitted to a medical examination—of course they were very carefully supervised by a man expert from the point of view of their safety—and this young lady went through the medical examination perfectly, and her main comment was that she enjoyed the experience enormously. [Interruption.] It is quite wrong, if I may say


so, for hon. Gentlemen to laugh at this matter. The truth of the matter is that in this country we have a very spirited population. [Interruption.]

Mr. Montague: This is really important, because most people have heard or read about these bombs cutting through steel plates. Are those stories true or are they not?

Mr. Lloyd: I have details of the exact time which these bombs took to burn through floors, and I could give them to the hon. Gentleman, but I think it would take too long to read an extract from a document of this kind, though I could furnish him with the details at another time. But the fact was that the bomb did tend to bum through the floor for a certain amount of time—I think a minute or so. In one case a fragment of the bomb fell through on to the bed in the next room, but that also was fairly easily controlled. There are certain details which I am not in a position to give to the Committee, and I cannot say what an incendiary bomb could do to a steel plate, but I think it may be taken for granted that much of the talk that goes about is greatly exaggerated. The practical test is what an incendiary bomb does in an average British house and how it can be controlled.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Was that a one-lb. bomb?

Mr. Lloyd: No, a one-kilo bomb, and that question brings me to my very next point. The question arises—and it is of great importance--what is to happen, not in regard to a one-kilo bomb, but in regard to the big incendiary bomb. Of course nobody would suggest that a girl, or indeed any householder, is capable of dealing with a big incendiary bomb. For that we must rely upon the emergency fire-fighting scheme, as put forward by the local authority and approved by the Home Office or the Scottish Office. It might interest the Committee—because I think it is very important to correct the perspective with regard to incendiary bombs of various sizes about which we are continually hearing—if I gave details of the average emergency fire-fighting schemes that we contemplate. We have prepared a model scheme as a guide for fire brigade officers of a town of 80,000 inhabitants.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary now telling the Committee what the Home Office proposes to do or what the local authorities propose to do?

The Chairman: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. Bellenger: May I respectfully point out, Sir Dennis, that that point of Order was raised, and hon. Members were ruled out of Order.

The Chairman: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Member. I thought he was asking a question to which he wanted some reply from the Under-Secretary. I do not follow his point of Order.

Mr. Bellenger: I was asking whether the Under-Secretary is in Order in referring to schemes to be initiated by the Home Office, since we were informed earlier that this Clause deals only with the local authorities and what they are to do?

Mr. Lloyd: Further to the point of Order, perhaps I may explain the position. As I stated in an earlier part of my speech, there is constant co-operation between the Home Office and the local authorities as to what kind of scheme would be approved. I am suggesting the sort of scheme which, if it were submitted by a local authority, would have the wholehearted approval of my right hon. Friend. I think the Committee wishes to hear this point.

Mr. Bellenger: We also wished to put it.

Mr. Lloyd: With regard to the point made by the hon. Member opposite, let us take the position as it would be in a town of 80,000 inhabitants, with no extraordinary fire risks, but situated in a part of the country which would be exposed to air attack. In peace time, such a town might be adequately protected against fire risks by a brigade equipped with two engines and perhaps a trailer pump, and having a staff consisting of a few whole-time firemen and a rather larger number of retained men who had periodical drills and were ready to turn out when required in case of fires. What would such a town require as an emergency fire scheme? First and foremost, it would require a system of patrols equipped


with trailer pumps. When there was any risk of air-raid fires, these patrol units would follow one another round prearranged routes, as policemen on a beat, round different sections of the town at intervals varying according to the degree of fire risk in those districts.
Secondly, the town might be divided into five sections, and in each section it would be necessary to have a base for mustering and reporting anything observed during the fire patrols. At those bases also would be stationed pumping appliances of a greater capacity as reserves for dealing with exceptional fires with which, for any reason, the patrols could not cope. The peace-time fire station would be one such base, and four other auxiliary fire stations might be provided at garages, schools or any other appropriate points. There would be three auxiliary fire stations, and the Government would provide a medium trailer pump for each of the three auxiliary stations. The Government would supply a still more powerful pump for relaying water in large quantities from the river, if there were one, or a lake, pool, or swimming bath, or any other exceptional supply of water that might be available in an emergency. The Government might thus, in all, provide one heavy pump, three medium trailer pumps and 20 light trailer pumps to this town, each appliance, of course, being fully equipped with the necessary hose and other equipment. There would need to be about 175 auxiliary firemen to man the station and patrol units, and probably this town would have to train not less than 300 men for actual fire-fighting duties.
I suggest to the Committee that we have to consider the adequacy of these proportions, not from the point of view of what is the adequacy of one particular detail, such as the gas-proof room, the respirator, the scoop and sand container for dealing with small incendiary bombs, sandbags, or even the emergency firefighting equipment, but from the point of view of the adequacy of the scheme, taking all these precautions in their proper spheres and lumped together, as an organised and co-ordinated system for dealing with the dangers of air raids. I suggest to the Committee that we have had an extremely interesting and practical discussion on this subject, which might be taken as a model in many of the local

authority discussions that will have to take place all over the country during the coming months. I now ask the Committee to pass the Clause.

Mr. Broad: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the question about the lighting of gas-proof rooms, and the power to impose requirements upon the owners of industrial buildings, and so on?

Mr. Lloyd: With regard to the first point, of course electricity is the best form of lighting for this particular purpose, although an adapted gas appliance might also be useful; but obviously the main point is to consume, in the gas-proof room, as little air as possible from the point of view of illumination. With regard to factory premises, I think there is an Amendment on the Paper on which that question can be raised.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Expenditure by local authorities.)

7.23 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move, in page 5, line 16, at the end, to add:
(3) Any local authority incurring expenditure for the purpose of making provision on private property for the protection of persons and property from injury or damage in the event of hostile attack from the air may make arrangements with the owners of such private property for the reimbursement of the whole or part of the money thus expended by the local authority on such terms as may be arranged mutually by the local authority and the owner of the property and approved by the Secretary of State.
My hon. Friends the Members for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds), Norwood (Mr. Sandys) and Yardley (Mr. Salt) have asked me to express their apologies to you, Sir, for their absence from their places to-day, and to explain that they are fulfilling a long-standing engagement to visit France to examine French air-raid precautions. The object of this Amendment is to enable a local authority to incur expenditure upon private property for the protection of persons and property in the case of air raids, and to make arrangements with the owners of such property for the reimbursement of the whole or part of the money so expended by the local authority on such terms as may be mutually arranged, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. This


Amendment is not in any way intended to increase to an enormous extent the cost which is to fall upon the local authorities or upon the Exchequer, and the fact that any such proposals will require the specific approval of the Secretary of State should, I think, establish that point. It is most desirable that the responsibilities falling respectively upon local authorities and private individuals with regard to air-raid precautions should be defined. Clause r, Sub-section (1) of the Bill states that the local authorities are responsible for preparing schemes
for the protection of persons and property in their several areas.
Speaking in the House last Thursday, the Secretary of State said:
The employer of labour and the householder will be primarily responsible for the protection of his own factory and the people in it and his own house."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1937; col. 1561, Vol. 329.]
The word "primarily" surely implies that somebody else will be secondarily responsible, and I would like that matter to be cleared up? Who is secondarily responsible for it? We usually land that what is everybody's business in practice becomes nobody's business. I remember a village cricket club once had a rule that it was the secretary who was responsible for putting away the stumps after play, and the rule proceeded to say that if the secretary did not do so, somebody else was responsible. I feel that the respective obligations of the local authorities and of private individuals should be made more distinct. In the case of householders, I think the position is comparatively simple, and I entirely agree with the statement which the Home Secretary made the other day to the effect that only simple apparatus involving small knowledge or expense would be required to give to a house a large measure of security against fire and that only simple precautions would be required to give security against gas.
But when we come to factories, the proposition is on a very much more formidable scale. As far as security for life is concerned, a very expensive shelter may have to be constructed, and there may be in the factories machinery and instruments which, from a national point of view, are even more precious, in time of war, than life itself. It may be of the first importance in the national interest, that such machinery or instru-

ments should be protected. I feel that this Amendment would assist in enabling local authorities and individuals to arrive at some convenient compromise in fulfilling their respective duties. Of course, a very big question will have to be dealt with somehow or another with regard to the position of railways, power stations, gasworks, docks, waterworks, and so on, in so far as they are in private hands. It is impossible to expect private individuals to undertake precautions at such enormous cost as to give adequate protection, in the event of air raids, to those whom they employ. They have to face a risk which is so incalculable that neither any insurance company nor, at the present time, the State is prepared to insure them against it. In such circumstances, it is of no use simply uttering pious admonitions about it being their duty to take precautions. We have to examine the question very carefully and to do something to assist them. I think that mutual arrangements between local authorities and private individuals concerning the sharing of the cost to be borne on each side will materially assist in that direction.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell: I want briefly to support my hon. Friend who has just sat down. No mention is made in this Bill of the possibility of assisting private individuals, whether householders or factory owners to supply their own equipment and appliances. I appreciate that there is a definite obligation on private persons to take their own precautions, especially if they be large employers of labour. At the same time, I think one must admit that there is a limit to the amount which you could expect private persons to spend in these matters, and although at the moment it may be that the Government do not anticipate very large expenditure on the part of private individauls, there may be a revision of air-raid precautionary ideas which will necessitate larger expenditure being made. Therefore, I think there should be some provision in this Bill to allow of financial assistance being given to private individuals to do so. It is not so much a case of householders as it is a case of factory owners or owners of large business premises, but even in the case of householders it may be that rather more expensive fire-fighting apparatus will be required than the shovel


and bucket of which we have heard so much to-day.
I suggest to my hon. Friend that we ought not to minimise the part which the householder himself will play in putting out a fire. We ought not to imagine that for ever the main role will be played by the local authorities' fire-fighting services, and if we have to increase the appliances which the householder himself owns, it may be necessary to help him with finance. I realise that the Government desire economy in these matters and that it must be of primary importance, but I suggest that it is not necessarily extra expenditure which would be incurred by helping private persons; it might quite easily be alternative expenditure. For instance, in helping factory owners you may easily be saving the local authority in their air-raid precautions plans considerable expense, because I can well envisage a situation in which the factory owner would be asked under a local authority's plan to provide certain air-raid precautions, which, if he did not do so, would otherwise have to be supplied by the local authority. In that case it would only be fair that some form of financial assistance should be given him.
In regard to shelters, we do not know how far we may have to go on those lines, and although at the moment shelters are envisaged as reasonably cheap affairs, if we take the view later on that where large sections of the population are gathered together, as in a large factory, it may be necessary to give them proper shelter, in any case from the non-armour piercing bomb. Such shelters would cost far more than the ordinary factory owner could undertake without some assistance. Therefore, I suggest that this is a question which should be envisaged in this Bill and that there should be some provision for financial assistance when and if the time comes.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I wish to recall to the mind of the Under-Secretary of State a number of questions which I put on Clause I and to which the Home Secretary said he would give an answer when we arrived at this Amendment. I have considerable sympathy with what has been said in regard to factories. I think that many factories will have to have adequate systems of shelter in the interests

of all concerned, and I think the cost to private firms might in some cases be actually prohibitive and that, if they had to bear it themselves, it would mean that there would not be adequate shelter provided and that the purposes in view would be defeated. Therefore, I think there is a strong case on that side of the question. In regard to the householder, if it is in the public interest that the householder should reduce the number of casualties by having a gas-proof room, by sandbagging his windows—and I hope the Under-Secretary did not mean to imply, in his speech just now on Clause 3, that the householder was not to sandbag his windows, because I should regard any such decision with great anxiety—by having an air lock on his door, and by having first-aid appliances, fire-fighting appliances, and so on, which evidently, after the speech of the Under-Secretary, must be in every house, it seems to us that it is unjust to expect the poor to pay for all that out of their own pockets.
I will take only one example. A soldier who is wounded on the field of battle does not provide his own field dressing, so why should a householder provide these things in his home? We consider that these appliances and all the equipment required ought to be furnished from national funds, out of taxation, and by national factories, and distributed to the householder precisely as gas masks are being distributed; and if gas masks are being administered on what is the correct plan, we do not see why that same plan should not apply to the other equipment of which I have spoken.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: The first two speakers on this Amendment referred to the local authorities as finding this money, and they were much more concerned with regard to factories and workshop than they appeared to be with regard to dwelling-houses. But surely if there is to be protection, and assistance is to be given towards it, it ought to be given to those in the dwelling-houses even before it is given to those in the factories, and I hope that if the Government accept anything in the way of providing these precautions, the Government will bear the expense. The new policy of the Government is to put the cost on the localities, and if they go on much longer, they will throw the whole cost of a war and of fighting on to


local authorities, if they get the chance. Here we have this Amendment, which appears to ask that the already overburdened local authorities should find the money in order that factories may secure protection for their workpeople—

Sir J. Mellor: It is designed to enable them to make a bargain if both sides think fit.

Mr. Kelly: A bargain, yes, which intends all the time that the local authorities shall bear the brunt of the expenditure, and if there is to be this protection, whatever form it takes, whether of underground shelters or otherwise, the Government should bear the cost of it. Incidentally you had better make up your minds that you will need to build underground shelters in order that the whole of the people may be protected in that way, but to suggest that this expenditure should come on to the local authorities is riot the right way to go about it. I hone the Committee will turn down the Amendment and that the Government will stand the whole cost.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. R. Acland: It seems to me that if the Amendment is passed, no factory owner will make any provision of any kind until he has struck a bargain with his local authority. He will point to this Amendment. He will point out that it was put into the Bill as an Amendment, and he will go to the local authority and say, "How desirable it is, from your point of view, that the workers in my factory should be protected; I am not going to pay a penny piece until you give me a 75 per cent. contribution towards the expenditure." Therefore, I think this Amendment will tend to produce less protection and not more. It is said by the Government that it is the primary responsibility of householders and factory owners to provide protection for their houses or factories, but is it seriously suggested by the Under-Secretary that any factory owner is to-day spending a penny piece in this direction and that expenditure by factory owners is in any way to be assisted in the future, when the British Iron and Steel Federation are making such a grand thing out of this armament boom? What is the total expenditure of all the steel factories in this country on air-raid precautions and protection at the present time? I think this

Committee would be interested to know, and to know also what steps are to be taken to see that these factory owners really do what is expected of them.
If there are factories which are so intensely valuable to the State, such as the one which has been mentioned so frequently, the Rolls-Royce factory in Cardiff, surely it is for the State and not for the local authority to carry the burden of protecting those specially valuable factories. If this goes through and the local authorities are to be called upon to bear part of the burden, why is it that the local authority which happens to have the Rolls-Royce factory in it is to be compelled to bear the burden, because a Rolls-Royce factory is so valuable in time of war, whereas another local authority, which merely has a treacle factory or some other kind of factory, will be allowed to get off scot-free? I hope the Amendment will be very carefully examined before it is put into the Bill.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Short: I hope the Under-Secretary of State will turn down the Amendment. I think we should be making a very great mistake if we introduced any measure of discrimination into this matter of air-raid precautions. In addition, the Amendment would throw an added financial responsibility upon the local authorities, because it is suggested that they may be reimbursed wholly or in part. We have decided that local authorities shall prepare schemes to be submitted to the Secretary of State for the protection of their respective communities, and the Secretary of State will give his approval, either to the schemes submitted, or to such modifications as may be desired. As the Under-Secretary has said that there is no complete security against air raids and the evils and disasters arising out of air raids, it is desirable that we should create in the minds of local authorities what I term a collective outlook, and that they should prepare schemes for the protection of the entire community, for the individual householder on the one hand and for the factory and the factory workers as well. We should not invite a local authority, in conjunction with a factory owner, to prepare a scheme for the mere protection of the factory itself. We do not want schemes to depend upon one aspect of protection, but upon a combination of the whole, and this Amendment, if it were carried, would,


I say, encourage a measure of discrimination which would be to the disadvantage, financially and otherwise, of the schemes which we hope will be prepared by local authorities and receive the assent of the Home Secretary.
There is a further aspect of the matter, and that is that we have been assured up to now that some financial responsibility will rest upon the shoulders and the pockets of householders, and that they will be expected, even the poorest of the poor, to provide out of their meagre means some measure of self-protection. If that be so, why should the poor people within a local authority area provide not only some measure of their own protection but contribute under this Amendment to the provision of protection for factories? That is asking for a great deal. I cannot think that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment and those associated with him have seriously thought about the Amendment or its financial aspect. They cannot have had in mind the statements made from time to time by the Under-Secretary regarding what is expected of householders. I hope the Under-Secretary will oppose the Amendment and stand by what I would call the collective attitude towards this problem on the part of local authorities. We should like to have schemes which will afford protection to the members of the community irrespective of their status.
If we begin picking out employers here and there, great factory owners, unmindful of the financial charge that we shall be putting upon the poor householder, we shall get ourselves discredited and create a measure of ill-feeling and discontent among the populace. That is the very thing that we desire to avoid in dealing with this problem. We want unanimity of feeling and general confidence. Those of us who went through the last War and carried heavy responsibilities as members of local authorities know how certain incidents were exaggerated and played upon. We know how it was pointed out that there was a defence here for that interest or person, and that there was not adequate defence for the poor. I speak with intimate knowledge. I was a member of the Sheffield City Council and went through that period, and I know full well the attitude of mind of the masses of the people during air raids. I hope the

Committee and the Under-Secretary will maintain the collective attitude on the part of the local authorities, because if we introduce any measure of discrimination we shall defeat our purpose.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I am utterly at a loss to understand the Amendment or to relate it to the purpose which the promoters have in view. If I may be quite frank. I cannot make head or tail of it. I understand from the speeches that the purpose of the Amendment is to relieve the owner of a factory from some part or the whole of the burden which the promoters of the Amendment imagine will be laid upon him by the Bill, but as I read the Amendment it does not read like an Amendment designed to relieve the owner of a factory or of other private property from expense, but rather to lay a charge upon him. It says:
Any local authority incurring expenditure for the purpose of making provision on private property … may make arrangements with the owners of such private property for the reimbursement of the whole or part of the money thus expended by the local authority.
Why should they do that? The effect of the Amendment would be to enable the local authority to go to the owner of a factory and say: "Because it is necessary that measures of protection should be taken for your premises we are proposing to make an arrangement whereby you should pay the whole or part of the cost."

Sir J. Mellor: By mutual arrangement?

Mr. Silverman: Why should the owner of the factory agree to any such thing? Why should any liability of that kind be placed upon his shoulders? I am all for laying upon the shoulders of employers every burden that legitimately arises out of his employment of labour, but I would not suggest that the protection of the lives, the limbs and the health of the workers in the factory from danger in an air raid is part of the legitimate risk which the employer by employing that labour has brought upon his shoulders. In my opinion, and I think it will be the feeling of the Committee, the first duty of the community, when the question of war arises, is to protect the limbs, the lives, the health and the properties of the civilian population at home. If that is not the duty of the community, why all


this talk and urgency about air-raid precautions and rearmament? If such precautions are not for the protection of the innocent law-abiding civilian population at home from harm, what is the use of it?
I am violently against any proposal or any idea or suggestion which could possibly assist the Government in removing from their own shoulders, where the burden properly lies, the cost of protecting the civil population either in air raids or any other aspect of war. I cannot see otherwise than that the effect of the Amendment is to assist the Government in a policy and an attitude which have already gone too far. Having heard the speeches in support of the Amendment I feel sure that that is not the intention of the mover or his supporters. There is a wide chasm, an unbridgeable gulf between the object which one understands to be the object of the supporters of the Amendment and the object that would be obtained if their Amendment were accepted. This is a very dangerous proposal. The Measure needs drastic amendment but the amendment which it needs ought to be in the direction of putting the burden more and more upon the community as a whole and less and less upon the individual, who is neither able to discharge it nor morally liable to discharge it. If one has to choose between laying the burden upon the individual or the local authority, one would reluctantly say that it should be put upon the local authority, and I do not want the local authority, but rather the State, to bear it. I would not support any proposal which might even remotely remove the Government from liability, to enable them to place an ever-increasing burden upon the shoulders of private individuals and expect them to perform functions which are properly and always have been the primary duty of the State.

7.55. p.m.

Mr. Ede: I regard this as a very wicked and selfish Amendment. The hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) in moving it used a phrase which gave me a shock, after I had listened to the greater part of the Debate on the Bill. He said that there were machinery and instruments that were more valuable than life itself.

Sir J. Mellor: During war.

Mr. Ede: I do not care whether it is during war or during peace. War is carried on, as I understand it, to protect life first and property a very bad second. If there is to be a choice between life and property this party stands for life first. I am very glad that from his interruption the hon. Member has enabled us to make quite clear what is his object.

Sir J. Mellor: Would the hon. Member fully justify in war time lives being sacrificed in order to save guns?

Mr. Ede: Now we are getting down to the position of a person who is under military orders. We have all along suspected, and I have said more than once, that we shall ultimately come to a position where this will be a military and not a civil machine. What a man may have to do to protect the lives of his comrades in the Army is a very different thing from what we are entitled to design in times of peace when we are having regard to the protection of the civil population and of non-combatants from the effects of war. We have heard a lot about the householder. The householder as such would get no benefit from this Amendment. It is limited to owners. Occupiers do not come into it. If there is a factory which is owned by one body of people and occupied by another you could not enter into any bargain with the occupier under this Amendment. This Amendment safeguards the interest of the investors and nobody else. We realise under this Amendment the difference that separates some hon. Members in the Conservative party who blurt out the truth by accident, and hon. Members on these benches. The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Maxwell) laughs, but he said that the primary object of the Government in these matters must be economy.

Mr. Maxwell: I do not think I said "primary." I said, a very important object.

Mr. Ede: No, Sir; I commented at the time to my hon. friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly): "There is an hon. Member who is giving the show away without knowing it." Of course, the hon. Member may not like to say it now. When he was making his statement the truth welled out of him, instead of being carefully safeguarded so that only as little as possible of it should escape. Now he may desire to alter what he said.
But we maintain that this Amendment is designed in the interest of property and does not refer to the safeguarding of life, and I hope that the Government, on this occasion, will turn down the proposal of their own supporters.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: Just before the Second Reading Debate Members were bombarded, not from the air but through the post, with letters from local authorities who were apprehensive that air-raid precautions would add considerably to their liabilities, The authorities were up in arms because they were afraid that a very large addition was about to be made to local rates by this scheme, and they asked every Member of Parliament to vote against the proposals as they were put forward in the Second Reading Debate. If this Amendment were carried what would be the position of the local authorities? There would be added to their already heavy liabilities a contribution to owners of property. The local authorities were right when they said in their manifesto that there was no finality to this expense, and it is that question which concerns people already suffering from high rates. It was contended, as many still contend, that the whole cost should be borne by the Government. We put forward that claim in the Second Reading Debate, and we were defeated in the Division Lobby. Now we are faced with an Amendment which proposes to saddle the local authorities with an additional expenditure of an unknown and unlimited amount. This would involve a tremendous burden on local rates. The Amendment suggests some sort of mutual arrangement, but it does not say who is to decide the question, should no mutual arrangement he reached. No body is specified to which this question can be submitted. We believe that a proposal which aims at caring for property rather than human life should not be entertained. I have been asked, time and again, by local authorities in my district to oppose anything which would add to their present liability. I believe that this Amendment would do so, and I shall vote against it.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I think the sense of the Committee is clearly against this Amendment and I do not suppose that any hon.

Member will be much surprised if I say that we hope that it will not be pressed. I take it, however, that the intention of my hon. Friends in moving this Amendment was to elicit a statement from the Government on some of the questions arising from it. With regard to the provision of air-raid precaution schemes in factories and business premises, our view is that, however much the Government and the local authorities can do in the provision of public services, there must remain a duty on the citizen to do what he can to help and a duty on firms to do what they can to help their employés as regards protection against air raids. In the case of factories and business premises, I think there may be a question for further investigation in this connection, but I do not think that that question arises on this Bill, in relation to the schemes of local authorities.
Probably what the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) would like me to deal with is the question of whether the Government are prepared to do anything, in the provision of fire appliances in the streets and for householders, in the same way as arrangements are being made for the provision of respirators. I agree that that is a very important question. The Government have not made any statement, so far, on the provision of these most important appliances. I must point out to the hon. Member, however, that there is a great difference between respirators and fire appliances, in that the respirators may be vitally necessary for the preservation of the lives of individuals in certain circumstances of gas attack, whereas in any case incendiary bombs, as opposed to high explosive bombs, and gas are more dangerous to property than to life. It is important that that fact should be appreciated. Apart from the ordinary possibilities of escape from fire, fires which are caused by incendiary bombs, certainly by those of the lighter type, tend to he in the upper stories of buildings, thus making them rather less dangerous to life—although of considerable danger to property—than the ordinary fire.

Mr. Ede: Does the hon. Gentleman sleep in the basement?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not wish to put the point any higher than this, that there is more danger from a fire which starts in


the basement than there is from a fire which starts in the attic because the strategic avenues of escape are less available in the first case. I do not press that point any further but come at once to the attitude of the Government on the provision of these appliances. It is hoped that, as a result of the experiments carried out by the Home Office, in the control of incendiary bombs and the design of these appliances, that appliances will be manufactured by the trade to a simple uniform specification and marketed to the public at small cost. In those circumstances the Government must rely on a substantial proportion of the population providing themselves with this type of equipment. But we recognise that there remains a limited number of exceptionally poor districts in which the possibility of a reasonable quantity of these appliances being purchased privately by the residents is small.
It was stated in the memorandum published in January last that as a simple means of tackling fires, pending the arrival of the fire brigade, wardens or voluntary helpers would be provided with a form of fire-fighting equipment. In accordance with that arrangement, special consideration will be given to these exceptionally poor districts with a view to the provision of a reserve, on an approved scale, of hand pumps and other equipment at the wardens' posts so that some may be available for use in an emergency. While we do not feel it possible in these poor districts to provide appliances in every house we think it may be practicable and desirable to have a reserve available for distribution in the streets to deal with the smaller fires that may arise. I hope that with this assurance my hon. Friends may be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir J. Mellor: In view of the Under-Secretary's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members: No!

Amendment negatived.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I beg to move, in page 5, line 16, at the end, to add:
(3) For the purposes of defraying any expenditure of a metropolitan borough council under this Act the council may borrow money in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 to 1893, as amended by the London Government Act, 1899:

Provided that the Minister of Health shall, instead of the London County Council, be the authority for sanctioning the borrowing of any money under the powers conferred by this section, except where those powers are exercised with respect to land used or intended to be used partly for purposes for which money has been or may be borrowed with the consent of the London County Council under some other Act.
This Amendment is put forward on behalf of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to accept it. Its object is to enable metropolitan boroughs to borrow for the purpose of defraying any expenditure incurred under this Measure. Hon. Members may be aware that for some purposes, the metropolitan boroughs are under the county council as the governing authority and in other respects they have to apply directly to the Minister. For instance, where metropolitan boroughs want the right to build baths and washhouses they have to go direct to the Minister, but as regards the right to build a town hall they must act through the county council. It is thought that if, for example, the construction of a concrete floor or roof was necessary as a precaution against air raids it would be an undesirable piece of red tapeism that in one case they should have to go to the county council, and in another case, to the Minister of Health. The Amendment seeks to ensure that one authority in the first instance, shall be the authority for the whole of these proposals.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I need not follow the hon. Member into the details which he has given to the Committee. I entirely agree with his statement of the problem. There was a slight difference of opinion between the Metropolitan borough councils and the London County Council, but they got together, and after a discussion of the difficulties they proposed an agreed solution. I need only say that we at the Home Office hope that a good many of the problems arising in connection with this Bill will be dealt with by the method of consultation and agreement.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I hope we may receive an assurance from the Minister that expenditure on air-raid precautions incurred by the Metropolitan Police and the precepting bodies in so far as that is charged to the general rates of the local authority, will, for the purposes of this Measure, rank as approved expenditure of that local authority. I think that the Minister is familiar with this case. It has been put to him by the various local authorities, for it is one on which we want some assurance, because, as far as one can see from the Clause, there is no definite assurance that the position is safeguarded.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I want to put one or two questions to the Under-Secretary. Under Sub-section (1) of this Clause local authorities may incur expenditure for the purpose of making provision for the protection of persons and property. Will that expenditure rank for any grant from national funds? It is conceivable that the Home Office may in time put additional burdens on local authorities, and those burdens may not be the same as those that have been outlined in the Bill, or in statements made by the Home Secretary or Under-Secretary during the passage of the Bill. If the local authorities may be asked to provide additional safeguards which may not be covered by the Bill, they ought to know not only whether they are entitled to spend local funds for that purpose, but whether they are to get any assistance from the Government in providing them. A local authority which is comprised of a considerable number of property owners might like to have some scheme of insurance of property against air-raid attack. Would that be a legitimate scheme under this Clause? Under Subsection (2) all expenditure that has been incurred since July, 1935, is legitimatised. Will that rank for grant from Government funds as any expenditure that is incurred after the passing of this Bill? If the hon. Gentleman can satisfy me on these points I have no further objection to the Clause.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am not sure that this Clause ought to stand part of the Bill, because it is the only Clause which enables the local authority to spend money on this

service. It has been the contention of my hon. Friends and I all along that the local authorities ought not to spend this money, and that it ought to fall entirely on State funds. It is a new principle since the beginning of the reform of local government in 1835 that expenditure on National Defence—and it is National Defence—should fall on the local rates. It establishes a highly undesirable principle. I can see no reason, if we pass this Clause, why the local authorities should not be made responsible in whole or in part for financing the local territorial regiments, especially the local units of the Royal Garrison Artillery defending such seaports as that which I represent, or the local Territorial units round London which are now so largely engaged in anti-aircraft services. No one would have contended a couple of years ago that any expenditure with regard to National Defence was properly chargeable to local rates. The incidence will be most unfair. Some parts of the country will escape any large burden. They will be in areas where no great amount of expenditure will be required for this purpose. I cannot make out exactly what proportion of the country the Government regard as vulnerable. There are over 40,000,000 people in the country, and a gas-mask is to be provided for every person who is believed to be in some area of danger. The total number of gas-masks which I heard mentioned the other night was 25,000,000.

Mr. Lloyd: When that figure was mentioned I corrected it because it is not the case that only 25,000,000 people will be provided. The number will be sufficient to provide for the total needs of the country in areas exposed to air attacks.

Mr. Ede: Could the hon. Gentleman indicate the proportion of the population who are supposed to live in areas where the danger may be?

The Deputy-Chairman: I hardly think that that arises on this Clause.

Mr. Ede: The exact fraction is not essential to my argument, but it is clear that there are some areas which are regarded as so remote from danger that gas-masks will not be provided there. Therefore, one may assume that most of the other expenditure to be incurred will also be small or non-existent. For the


first time, as far as I can make out, since Feudal times some part of the country will escape from defraying the legitimate cost of public defence because that part is regarded as remote from the danger, whereas other areas, such as my constituency, which are in the first line of attack, will have to incur substantial expenditure in order to protect themselves and the property in their area from this form of attack. That is a preposterous proposal and one that strikes at the basis of national unity. I am surprised that a Government which calls itself National should ever have contemplated it. It is a good indication of the extent to which the title National is deserved by the Government. I notice that the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) seems in rather a hurry to get up and speak. This is not the Family Inheritance Bill. If much of that which we contemplate comes about, there will be nothing left to inherit and no families to squabble over it.
It is an entirely novel proposition that this expense should be borne by the locality. We have contended all along that it should be borne by the Nation. The Clause has been slightly amended by the Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), but if the local authorities escape making any payment, that machinery will not be needed. We have never had from the Government any real defence for putting this matter upon the shoulders of the local authorities. I am sure that it will not remain a local service the minute after the national emergency arises. It would be far better managed and there would be less likelihood of difficulties in the way of a complete scheme if it were taken over by the Nation, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) said on Second Reading, if the local authorities were left as the agents of the Government to carry out their instructions. They may, it is true, find the machinery of local government services the appropriate ones to use, but during the latest war, the one from 1914 to 1918, it was not uncommon for officers of local authorities to be seconded for military purposes in their areas to great camps and similar places, and there is no reason why that should not be repeated. I shall see this Clause go into the Bill, if it be inserted, with the very

greatest reluctance, and I hope that I shall have the opportunity of recording my vote against a proposal which I believe to be revolutionary and thoroughly objectionable.

8.25 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for drawing the attention of the Chair to the fact that I want to speak. In the first line of this Clause it states that "any local authority" may incur expenditure, and I should like to know what would be the position of a catchment board. Does a catchment board come under this Bill? It is obvious that catchment boards may have defensive works to carry out along their waterways. Banks might be damaged and have to be repaired if there were a breach. We all know the peril of flooding which arose in the Ouse Valley, and we all know how, during the War, banks were broken down by enemy action. If the Under-Secretary is not prepared to answer me on this point, I will not press it, but I should like to know whether catchment boards come under the proposals in this Measure or under any arrangements which may deal with waterworks.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I want to say in one sentence that I entirely agree with the point which has been argued so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and to add that we on this side shall vote against this Clause, because by so doing we shall be voting for the substance of our Amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill. It is not that we are against expenditure for this purpose. We have said time and time again that we want schemes which will be effective and comprehensive, but the expenditure ought to be a national charge and the service a national service, and we think that in the end the Government will be driven to adopt that course.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I should like to ask what is meant by this Clause? It says that
Any local authority may incur expenditure for the purpose of making provision for the protection of persons and property from injury or damage in the event of hostile attack from the air whether or not such expenditure is incurred in pursuance of an air-raid precaution scheme.


Do I understand that this Clause is inserted in the hope of putting on the localities a greater share of the cost of the Defence forces? If it is not to be expenditure incurred in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme, local authorities may have imposed upon them expenditure incurred by the Navy, the Army or the Air Force for other purposes than air-raid precautions. If that be not so, what is the justification for these words? I hope the Under-Secretary will explain whether this is an insidious attempt by the Government to impose more and more of the expenditure for war upon the local authorities.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: The point which I principally desired to make has been stated in part by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). I should very much like to know in what way a local authority may incur expenditure on making provision for the protection of persons and property from injury or damage in the event of hostile attack from the air otherwise than in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme. The Clause gives a local authority power to incur expenditure upon such protection sometimes in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme, and sometimes not in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme, and the distinction was not explained on Second Reading or when we began the discussion of this Clause. In what way can money be expended on protection against air-raids otherwise than in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme? If there is the possibility of such double barrelled expenditure, obviously there must follow the result foreshadowed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, because that part of the expenditure which is incurred in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme will be largely covered—we hope more largely than has been promised so far—by the State, whereas any expenditure for the same purpose which is not in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme will have to be borne by the local authority.
After the long Debates on Second Reading nobody expects that the Government will once again launch into a defence of their attitude to the general question whether the whole cost ought to be borne

by the State or whether some part should fall upon the local authorities, but in discussing this Clause I cannot refrain from once again calling attention—and one cannot do it too often—to the extraordinary differentiation which the Government desire to make between one kind of defensive warfare and another. I use the term "defensive warfare" advisedly, because whatever I may think of the foreign policy of the Government I am certain that they would never intentionally engage in any warfare which they did not deem to be defensive.

Mr. Ede: That is what all countries say.

Mr. Silverman: I suppose that is so, if we are to believe what they say in public.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot pursue that subject on this Clause.

Mr. Silverman: I was led aside by the tempting bait thrown out to me by hon. Friend. The point I want to make—assuming that any war in which we were engaged was a defensive war—is that the Government make a difference according to the locale or venue of the conflict. If this defensive warfare is being pursued on the sea or on a foreign shore or between army and army, between navy and navy or between air force and air force, the State will bear the whole cost of it, but once the enemy bomber has got through, once the defensive war is a war on our civilian population within our own shores, then the Government say, "We will no longer as the State bear the whole cost. Because we have failed to keep the enemy from our shores, because the Army, the Navy and the Air Force have failed to keep the civilian population secure, some part of the consequent cost shall fall upon the civilian population.' That is an extraordinary line for any Government, particularly a National Government, to adopt. It is certainly new, at any rate in modern times.
I was interested to hear the reference made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to feudal ideas. I had in mind the point that not since feudal times has there been a parallel to this kind of local defence when the task of defending land and property as well as the life and limb of the individual citizens, is to devolve from the central


authority to some extent to the locality in which the war is for the moment being waged. I hope that the Committee will defeat the Clause, because the effect of doing so would be to throw the responsibility for the defence of property, life, limb and health back to where it belongs, and from which it ought never to have been separated—the central authority. The first task of government is to protect the civilian population within their shores from hostile attack, and it is wrong in principle that any share of that cost should come back upon the individual.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: Sub-section (1) reads:
Any local authority may incur expenditure for the purpose of making provision for the protection of persons and property from injury or damage in the event of hostile attack from the air whether or not such expenditure is incurred in pursuance of an air-raid precaution scheme.
I hope to show the Committee that this is not an insidious scheme on the part of the Home Office or the National Government for doing something not contemplated in the general purpose of the Bill. The explanation is simple. It is desirable to legitimate the expenditure that has already been incurred by many local authorities; it may not be very large expenditure, but it is expenditure. The Committee will appreciate that any expenditure which has been incurred—

Mr. Silverman: Is not that point sufficiently covered by Sub-section (2)? If from Sub-section (1) were left out the words
whether or not such expenditure is incurred in pursuance of an air-raid precaution scheme,
and left Sub-section (2) in, would not the point made by the Under-Secretary of State be amply covered?

Mr. Lloyd: I will come to that point. It is desirable that Sub-section (1) should be thoroughly in tune with the purpose of the Bill. It is a technical fact that any expenditure that has been incurred in this way is not part of an air-raid precaution scheme, in any technical sense approved by my right hon. Friend. Therefore, it is desirable from that point of view alone to have those words in. On the general question of expenditure in the past, as hon. Members will see, Sub-section (2) legitimates the expenditure since 9th July, 1935, the date of the

issue of the circular. Hon. Members wanted to know about grants. The position is slightly different. Under an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend earlier this year, all expenditure since 1st January this year will rank for grant. All approved expenditure under this Clause will rank for grant.

Mr. Bellenger: Am I to understand that all expenditure incurred before 1st January this year will not rank for Government grant, if the Clause is passed?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, expenditure before 1st January this year will not rank for grant.

Mr. Ede: That merely means that people who got on with the job when you were asking them in 1935 are to be fined for it.

Mr. Lloyd: That would not be the right assumption at all. The circular of 1935 pointed out quite clearly to local authorities that we did not expect at that time that what we were asking in the circular would involve great expenditure. It was more a question of the time of certain officials in preparing certain schemes. The undertaking given in regard to 1937 covers a period of more substantial expenditure. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) about the gas-mask position. The remote authority in the West of Scotland which was not receiving gas-masks is not a favourable illustration at all. The hon. Member was saying that that authority would escape the burden of air-raid precaution in respect of gas-masks, but gas-masks are provided by His Majesty's Government as a national charge. The authority would be bearing the share of the burden of providing gas-masks but would not be receiving them. The position would therefore be the other way round.
As to the position of catchment boards, I am advised that drainage authorities are not local authorities within the limits of Clause 9. Catchment boards are in a somewhat peculiar position in that they have express powers of precepting upon councils which makes it possible to contend that they are local authorities within the meaning of the Bill. Their position is similar in many respects to public utility undertakings, which were dealt with in a statement made to the Committee by my right hon. Friend on 25th November. That brings me to the point made by the


hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) about approval of Metropolitan Police expenditure on air-raid precautions. The answer is that the machinery of the Bill does make provision whereby local authorities can get air-raid precaution grant on expenditure incurred by them in meeting approved air-raid precaution expenditure of all precepting authorities. If the grant went direct to the precepting authorities it would cause complications, so it will be payable to the constituent authorities. Unless the Committee wishes me to describe the precise machinery I shall not further weary hon. Members. I think this arrangement is much more satisfactory.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the Minister maintain that the Clause relates solely to past expenditure?

Mr. Lloyd: No, of course not, and I hope I have not given the Committee an impression of that kind.

Mr. Kelly: Which is the constituent authority for the local police in London and to whom will the money be paid?

Mr. Lloyd: The money will be actually paid to the local authorities upon whom the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police precepts in regard to Metropolitan Police expenditure.

Mr. Kelly: What happens in the case of other authorities?

Mr. Lloyd: That covers those authorities.

Mr. Shinwell: I wish to pursue the point I put to the hon. Gentleman in the form of a question. I hope he will correct me if I misunderstood him, but my interpretation of his observations was that we were dealing with expenditure already incurred by local authorities. If that is not the position, will the hon. Gentleman explain the nature of the activity to be undertaken by local authorities outwith air-raid precaution schemes? That question was addressed to him by one of my hon. Friends, but he has not given any answer. Unless there is some clear explanation of what is meant by schemes other than those specified in the Bill, we are in some doubt as to what is intended.

Mr. Lloyd: I am sorry if I have not been sufficiently precise. I do not know whether all hon. Members are in the same

difficulty as the hon. Gentleman. This Clause is a general Clause, which deals with the expenditure of local authorities. A particular question was addressed to me—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here at the time—with regard to certain parts of the expenditure and the position with regard to that expenditure. Therefore, I rather naturally confined my reply more particularly to that past expenditure.

Mr. Shinwell: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, and understand his meaning to be that it relates to Sub-section (2). He answered a question which was put to him, and I now want to ask what is the nature of the expenditure to be incurred on schemes other than those intended to operate in pursuance of air-raid precautions?

Mr. Lloyd: I am sorry if I have not been sufficiently clear. I thought I had made it clear that expenditure incurred by a local authority, for example, at the present time, before the passage of the Bill, cannot be part of an air-raid precautions scheme, because it has not been approved by my right hon. Friend. That is why it is necessary to make it clear that the Clause legitimates, not only expenditure incurred in connection with air-raid precaution schemes, but also certain other expenditure. One of the types of other expenditure that we have in mind is expenditure which is incurred at the present time, but which cannot be part of an air-raid precautions scheme.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not clear that, if it does not relate to the remote past, it relates to expenditure preceding the passage of the Bill, that is to say, at the present time? Obviously, the Bill has not yet become an Act. Therefore, according to what the hon. Gentleman has just said, it is expenditure incurred immediately before the passage of the Bill, and, therefore, not approved by the Home Secretary. We are dealing with expenditure which precedes the passing of the Bill, and I would like to know what is the nature of that expenditure.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I asked the hon. Gentleman what expenditure could be incurred by local authorities, for the purpose of making provision for protection from injury or damage in the event of a hostile attack from the air, that was not


incurred in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme. I understood him to reply that it is expenditure incurred by local authorities prior to the passing of the Act, and, therefore, not on an air-raid precaution scheme within the meaning of the Act. I intervened, when he gave that explanation, to point out that without these extremely ambiguous words Sub-section (2) would cover that. May I now put the point to him again, and call his particular attention to the fact that words at the end of Sub-section (1) are, not "has been incurred," but "is incurred." One would suppose that, if all that the Government had in mind was to cover expenditure which was by its very nature air-raid precautions scheme expenditure, but not technically so, because it had already been incurred, they would either have been content with Sub-section (2) or, if they thought that something more was necessary, would not have said "is incurred," but rather, "has been incurred."

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Is it not the fact that the words in Sub-section (1), down to the word "air" in line 10, will be the authority under which, from the passing of this Act and for the future, air-raid precautions expenditure will be rightly chargeable to local authorities' accounts, arid will be the authority to be produced at the Ministry of Health audit in defence of such expenditure? That will be the ordinary normal expenditure. I would prefer that points of law should be explained verbally by the Solicitor-General, instead of by nods and signs which I understand, but which cannot be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The words are due to the fact that some of this expenditure has been incurred before, but. I want to point out the danger that they might he produced in future at the local government audit to cover future expenditure, not in pursuance of a scheme, but in pursuance of some whim of the local authority outside the scheme. I do not know that they might not even be used to cover the raising and equipment of a local antiaircraft unit.

Mr. Lloyd: As there is some danger of misunderstanding with regard to this matter, we should like to deal with it as fully as possible. The Committee have probably followed what I said with regard to the use of this Clause in reference

to expenditure which may have been incurred already by local authorities. It is advisable to have it, not only with regard to past expenditure, but with regard to future expenditure of the same order, because there may be a desire that certain expenditure should be incurred by a local authority for air-raid precautions before the final approval of the scheme by the Secretary of State has taken place, and hon. Members will appreciate that it is necessary to have these words for the purpose of legitimating that expenditure.

Mr. Shinwell: That is all it refers to?

Mr. Lloyd: It refers to the general question of expenditure, but I am dealing with this specific point. The Clause also makes it possible to permit expenditure on air-raid precautions to be incurred by authorities other than scheme-making authorities. This is a complicated question of the construction of the Clause. It is largely a question of machinery, and, as it has a legal aspect, I think that perhaps the Committee would like to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General on the point.

8.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): My nods and jerks were only to indicate to the hon. Gentleman that I desired to make the point clear, supplementing what my hon. Friend has said. The Clause permits expenditure on air-raid precautions by local authorities which do not make schemes. Not all local authorities as defined in the Bill make schemes. In Clause 9, the definition Clause, the expression will be found:
'Local authority' includes any authority having power to levy a rate as defined for the put poses of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, or for whose expenses a precept may be issued"—
and so on. These local authorities include different kinds of authorities from those which have to make schemes under Clause 1. Under Clauses 1 and 2 the scheme-making authorities are the councils of counties, county boroughs and London authorities, or, in some circumstances, the councils in the county districts. Those are the only authorities to whom grants are payable under Clause 6, but there are other local authorities to whom that definition applies: for instance, joint hospital boards, joint drainage boards, and joint sewage boards; and


they, by Clause 5, are permitted to incur expenditure in respect of air-raid precautions. So that is the meaning of the words; that is one of the reasons, in addition to the reason given by my hon. Friend, why there is a reference in the last line to
whether or not such expenditure is incurred in pursuance of an air-raid precaution scheme.
I gather from the symptoms of irritation that these remarks promote that it may have occurred to some hon. Gentlemen to ask, "How, then, are the local authorities in the different categories defined in the Act to get any money for the purposes defined in their schemes?" They derive their income by precepting on their constituent authorities, and the constituent authorities then make a rate on their ratepayers. The proposal is that expenditure incurred by the precepting authorities should rank for grant under Clause 6, under the conditions laid down. That is a reason, additional to the one given by my hon. Friend, which will, I think, make it clear to the Committee that it was necessary to provide power by Clause 5 to enable local authorities to make air-raid precaution schemes.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: The Under-Secretary will remember that I raised this point originally when I spoke on this Clause. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman has taken us a little further, he has not cleared up some of the misconceptions. For instance, the rural districts will presumably be carrying out air-raid precautions; will they get grants under this Clause? Secondly, it says that local authorities may incur expenditure. I take it that that means that they may incur expenditure in future which will not be under an air-raid precautions scheme. If they do, will they be able to get any grant from the Government?

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman with very great care, and I confess, however unreasonable it may sound, that I am not entirely satisfied with the explanation. It seems to me, having listened first to the Under-Secretary and now to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that insufficient attention has been paid to the drafting of these words. I do not know whether I

am doing an injustice to the Under-Secretary if I say that the explanation he gave did not contain a single hint of the explanation which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave. The explanation given by the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to have little enough to do with the explanation of the Under-Secretary in the first place. But may I draw attention to the wording of the Clause as it now is? If it be true that the wording is perfectly innocent, and that no authority will be called upon to make any expenditure for anything in the nature of an air-raid precaution scheme without getting anything for it, surely it would be better to take the whole Clause back, and re-draft it drastically. It seems to me that in the way it is drafted it goes far beyond what is necessary to cover the very small point which was given as an explanation.
Look at the first word of the Clause, where it speaks of "any local authority"—not a special type of local authority, not a local authority of a joint nature or a limited nature, or only limited functions, but "any local authority may incur expenditure," whether or not "in pursuance of an air-raid precaution scheme." On that wording, what is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) when he says, "Suppose South Shields decided to equip and run an anti-aircraft section of its own, under the orders of the town clerk or mayor, would it be prevented under this Clause?" Could not any local authority incur expenditure which the Home Office did not sanction as part of the air-raid precaution scheme? Further, whatever the intention of the Government may be, have you not the result that gaps exist, through which it would be possible to force the local authority to incur heavy expenditure, designed to do the same thing as the air-raid precaution scheme is designed to do, without getting any proportion of the cost from the Government? If that is not their intention, the only safe thing is to take the Clause back, and put it down again later in a drastically altered form.

9.3 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I cannot help thinking there is some misapprehension here. This is a Clause which enables


local authorities, as defined in the Act, to incur the expenditure—nothing more or less than that. It is not a Clause which enables or authorises the Secretary of State to contribute. That is put in Clause 6. The point the hon. Gentleman was making a moment ago is entirely dealt with by the definition of approved expenditure in Clause 9, which says:
'Approved expenditure' means, in relation to any local authority, so much of the expenditure of the authority as is approved by the Secretary of State in accordance with regulations made under this Act.
Only in these circumstances will the local authority rank for grant. The local authority must comply with the regulations which the Secretary of State has made under Clause 8, and only then will it rank for grant. Clause 5 does not say, as the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, that duties can be imposed on local authorities. It only empowers them to undertake duties. That is the only function of Clause 5. If the local authorities are of the kind that have a duty imposed on them—that is the schemes authorities—then they COME under Clause 6 and rank for grant for approved expenditure.

Mr. Noel-Baker: It would be possible for the local authority to go outside the scheme and carry out some works of its own without the sanction of the Home Secretary, and I take it it would not receive a grant?

The Solicitor-General: I am really a make-weight in this matter on account of the fact, as my hon. Friend has said, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is unable to be here, and I do not pretend to have any knowledge of the policy that lies behind this Bill. All that I am trying to do is to explain to the Committee to the best of my ability what the Clauses

mean. I am really pointing out that there are two kinds of local authority contemplated, one of which is not responsible for preparing a scheme and yet may incur expenditure and collect its money in the way I have described. It would be possible, theoretically, as was said a moment ago, for local authorities to make particular schemes which had no authority and to incur expenditure which was not approved expenditure. As far as merely the wording of this Clause Is concerned, there is nothing in the Clause to prevent it, but I apprehend that there are a good many other administrative methods by which the local authority might be prevented.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: A remarkable situation has developed. A few moments ago the Under-Secretary made way for his hon. and learned Friend on the ground that he was better equipped to deal with this Clause. Certainly he did not appear to have equipped himself because he was quite unable to furnish any explanation of what this Clause means. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself has found some difficulty, indeed, on his own admission. We are well aware of the reason that delays the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, but in view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary presented the spectacle of the hon. and learned Gentleman beside him as a means of elucidating the point at issue, and having regard to his own admission, I feel that the time has arrived when we should move to report Progress. I therefore beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 97; Noes, 202.

Division No. 32.]
AYES.
[9.9 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Chater, D.
Gardner, B. W.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Cluse, W. S.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)


Ammon, C. G.
Cove, W. G.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Dalton, H.
Grenfell, D. R.


Banfield, J. W.
Dobbie, W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (W'ddl'sbro, W.)


Barnes, A. J.
Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Bellenger, F. J.
Ede, J. C.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)


Benson, G.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Broad, F. A.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Harris, Sir P. A.


Bromfield, W.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Burke, W. A.
Gallacher, W.
Hayday, A.




Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Messer, F.
Short, A.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Milner, Major J.
Silverman, S. S.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Montague, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Hopkin, D.
Muff, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Kelly, W.T.
Owen, Major G.
Thurtle, E.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Paling, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Kirby, B. V.
Parker, J.
Viant, S. P.


Lathan, G.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Watson, W. McL.


Leach, W.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Welsh, J. C.


Lee, F.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Westwood, J.


Leonard, W.
Ridley, G.
White, H. Graham


Logan, D. G.
Ritson, J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


McEntee, V. La T.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


McGhee, H. G.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Maclean, N.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


MacNeill, Weir, L.
Sexton, T. M.



Marshall, F.
Shinwell, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson.




NOES.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Markham, S. F.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Emery, J. F.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Errington, E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Everard, W. L.
Moreing, A. C.


Beechman, N. A.
Fides, Sir H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Bernays, R. H.
Fleming, E. L.
Munro, P.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Nall, Sir J.


Bossom, A. C.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gledhill, G.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gluckstein, L. H.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Bracken, B.
Gower, Sir R. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Brass, Sir W.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Grimston, R. V.
Petherick, M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hambro, A. V.
Porritt, R. W.


Butcher, H. W.
Hannah, I. C.
Procter, Major H. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Radford, E. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Harbord, A.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Cary, R. A.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsbotham, H.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Gazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Channon, H.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Higgs, W. F.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Christie, J. A.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Holmes, J. S.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ross Taylor. W. (Woodbridge)




Rowlands, G.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hopkinson, A.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Jones. Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Scott, Lord William


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Keeling, E. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Shopperson. Sir E. W.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Kimball, L.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Crooke, J. S.
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Smithers, Sir W.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lees-Jones, J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cross, R H.
Levy, T.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Crossley, A. C.
Lewis, O.
Spens. W. P.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lloyd, G. W.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J


Davies. C. (Montgomery)
Loftus, P. C.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


De Chair, S. S.
Lyons, A. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


De la Bère, R.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tacker, Sir R. I.


Dodd, J. S.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Macdonald. Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Duggan, H. J.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Macquisten, F. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Eckersley, P. T.
Magnay, T.
Turton, R. H.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.







Wakefield, W. W.
Wells, S. F.
Wise, A. R.


Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C,


Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Warrender, Sir V.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Waterhouse. Captain C.
Wilson, Lt.-Col, Sir A. T. (Hitchin)



Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Mr. Furness and Major Herbert.

Question again proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Ede: By the explanation of the Solicitor-General we have reached a truly extraordinary stage on this Clause. In his last explanation the hon. and learned Gentleman introduced the words approved expenditure." There is no justification for his contention that expenditure under this Clause is limited to approved expenditure. This is expenditure which any local authority as defined in the definition Clause may incur, and many of the authorities, indeed the great majority of them, are not authorities which are authorised under the Clause to prepare schemes. Take, for example, the county of Surrey. In the geographical county of Surrey there will be two scheme-preparing authorities, the Croydon County Borough Council and the Surrey County Council. Inside the area of Surrey there are 32 other local authorities, and unless they are given special permission none of them may prepare a scheme, but any of them may incur expenditure under the Bill whether that expenditure is in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme or not.
Suppose one of the boroughs or urban district councils or rural district councils considers that the county scheme, even after it has been approved by the Secretary of State, does not contain sufficient precautions to cover their area. They can then incur expenditure under the scheme for making such provision as they think fit. It is not approved expenditure because they are not a grant-claiming authority and, therefore, there is no need for them to get the approval of the Secretary of State. That expenditure is authorised under the scheme, and it is a good example of the way in which the absence of national control and using local authorities as the agents will produce a state of chaos in regard to the schemes. If such expenditure is challenged by a ratepayer at the Ministry of Health's audit the clerk to the council will produce this Sub-section as his authority for the expenditure, and unless it is totally un-

reasonable expenditure the Ministry of Health auditor, whatever he may think of the wisdom of a rural council to embark on such a scheme, will pass the expenditure. If it is only a question of £50 or £100 it is unlikely that the auditor will surcharge, or if a surcharge is made the Ministry of Health would then remit it.

Mr. Croom-Johnson: Hear, hear.

Mr. Ede: I am a layman explaining the legal implications of a Clause which the make-weight of the Government did not do, and I should have more confidence in the Government if the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) sat on the Government Bench instead of the make-weight. From his encouraging cheers I should regard his promotion with the greatest amount of approval. I have endeavoured to put as simply as I can the difficulty which confronts us in this Clause. I ask the Solicitor-General to recognise that whatever the Clause may mean it does not affect the case I am putting forward. There is here an opportunity for any local authority, whether it is a scheme-preparing authority or not to incur an expenditure of money and have this as a defence at the Ministry of Health audit. The whole case of hon. Members on this side is that these proposals ought not to be capable of these local excrescences, which may be received by the Home Secretary at a time of national emergency, as a great surprise, and might in fact cut across the proper equipment of man-power for the general scheme under which all these local schemes may have to be amalgamated to meet an emergency. The Clause clearly needs revision and redrafting, and the explanations we have had have been totally unsatisfactory. It is clear that this part of the Bill has never been thought out by the Government in the structure of their scheme.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: After the really extraordinary speech of the Solicitor-General we are in this dilemma; either it is possible for a local authority to spend money on schemes which reasonably make provision for the protection of persons and property


from injury or damage in the event of a hostile attack from the air without getting any contribution from the State at all, or we are in the position that Clause 5 makes it lawful for a local authority to spend money for such purposes unreasonably. The Solicitor-General drew our attention to Clause 6, which deals with approved expenditure and defines what proportion of approved expenditure on an air-raid precautions scheme strictly so-called shall be paid by the State. Well then, Clause 5 as at present drafted permits local authorities to spend more and other moneys on air-raid precaution scheme objects, which however are not included within an air-raid precautions scheme strictly so-called. That must mean that this Clause is designed to give authority to a local authority to spend money which without the Clause it would be unlawful for it to spend at all. The whole discussion arose out of a question I addressed to the Home Secretary on Clause 5 as to how it is possible for a local authority to spend money on these purposes otherwise than in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme; and after the various conflicting explanations given by the Under-Secretary and the Solicitor-General at any rate we are left with this, that either this is an extremely mischievous Clause or it has been so badly drafted that it will effect mischiefs which no one, not even the Government, wishes to effect, and the only safety is for the Government to withdraw it and draft it in such a way that it can be understood by lawyers and laymen alike.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I have asked more than once a question which has not been answered yet. If it is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said, that rural councils who may desire to formulate for their own

localities air-raid precautions schemes which are not approved schemes, then am I to understand that they do that entirely at their own cost? If that is so, I ask the Government to reconsider this matter. It may be that schemes adopted by the county councils for these areas may not be considered entirely suitable by these rural councils, and it seems to me entirely unfair that they should be deprived of a grant from the Government if they proceed to adopt other precautionary measures to protect them, additional to what the county authorities may desire for them. If that is a true statement of the facts, can the Government give us some assurance that they will not be precluded from getting the appropriate Government grant?

9.29 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): In reply to the question just put, the position is simply that if the local authority spends money in pursuance of an approved scheme it will get the grant. If it spends money over and above that, it spends it out of its own pocket. The answer is very simple. There is no question of any conflicting explanation having been given; the explanations are perfectly consistent. The Under-Secretary explained one part of this Clause and the Solicitor-General explained a further portion of it. [Laughter] Does that seem very funny? A lot of things seem funny to the hon. and learned Member which are not funny to the rest of the House. A further point is, can a local authority spend money on air-raid precautions out of its own pocket? The answer is, yes. That is all.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 97.

Division No. 33.]
AYES.
[9.30 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Bracken, B.
Christie, J. A.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Brass, Sir W.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. F. S. (E. Grinstead)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Clarry, Sir Reginald


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Colfox, Major W. P.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Conant, Captain R. J. E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Butcher, H. W.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Beechman, N. A.
Carver, Major W. H.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)


Bernays, R. H.
Cary, R. A.
Cox, H. B. Trevor


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Cranborne, Viscount


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Craven-Ellis, W.


Bossom, A. C.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Channon, H.
Crooke, J. S.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.




Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Crossley, A. C.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Keeling, E. H.
Ropner Colonel L.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


De Chair, S. S
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


De la Bère, R.
Kimball, L.
Rowlands, G.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Dodd, J. S.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Lees-Jones, J.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Levy, T.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Lewis, O.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Duggan, H. J.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Scott, Lord William


Duncan, J. A. L.
Lloyd, G. W.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Eckersley, P. T.
Loftus, P. C.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lyons, A. M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Ellisten, Capt. G. S.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Emery, J. F.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Emmett, C. E. G. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Spans. W. P.


Errington, E.
Macquisten, F. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Magnay, T.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Everard, W. L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fildes, Sir H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Fleming, E. L.
Markham, S. F.
Tacker, Sir R. I.


Ganzoni, Sir H.
Masan, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Gledhill, G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Gluckstein, L. H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Mills. Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Gower. Sir R. V.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Turton, R. H.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Moreing, A. C.
Wakefield, W. W.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Munro, P.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Waltsend)


Grimston, R. V.
Nall, Sir J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Neves-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Waterhouse, Captain G.


Hambro, A. V.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Hannah, I. C.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wells, S. R.


Harbord, A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Petherick, M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Higgs, W F.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Porritt, R. W.
Wise, A. R.


Holmes, J. S.
Procter, Major H. A.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Radford, E. A.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Hopkinson, A.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsbotham, H.



Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Cross and Mr. Furness




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Gardner, B. W.
McGhee, H. G.


Adams, D. (Consett)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maclean, N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
MacNeill, Weir, L.


Ammon, C. G.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Marshall, F.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Mathers. G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Grenfell, D. R.
Messer, F.


Banfield, J. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbre, W.)
Milner, Major J.


Barnes, A. J.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Montague, F.


Bellenger F. J.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Benson, G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Muff, G.


Broad, F. A.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Bromfield, W.
Heyday, A.
Oliver, G. H.


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Owen, Major G.


Chater, D.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Paling, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Parker, J.


Cove, W. G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Pethiek-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Hopkin, D.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Dalton, H.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Richards. R. (Wrexham)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Ridley, G.


Dobbie, W.
Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Ede, J. C.
Kirby B. V.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellly)
Leach, W.
Seely, Sir H. M


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lee, F.
Sexton, T. M.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Leonard, W.
Shinwell, E.


Foot, D. M.
Logan, D. C.
Short, A.


Gatlacher, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Silverman, S. S.







Smith, E. (Stoke)
Tinker, J. J.
White, H. Graham


Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Viant, S. P,
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Watkins, F. C.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Watson, W. McL.
Young, Sir F. (Newton)


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Welsh, J. C.



Thurtle, E.
Westwood, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.

CLAUSE 6.—(Exchequer grants.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I rise simply to state that, having divided against the last Clause, because we do not think that the local authorities ought to be involved in

any expenditure on this subject, we shall now divide against this Clause, because we consider that the grants which it is proposed shall be made by the Government are inadequate and unsatisfactory.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 97.

Division No. 34.]
AYES.
[9.38 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Loftus, P. C.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Lyons, A. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Duggan, H. J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Duncan, J. A. L.
MoCorquodate, M. S.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Emery, J. F.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Macquisten, F. A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsmth)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Magnay, T.


Beechman, N. A.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Bernays, R. H.
Errington, E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardin, S.)
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Bossom, A. C.
Everard, W. L.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Fildes, Sir H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Fleming, E. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Bracken, B.
Furness, S. N.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Brass, Sir W.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Mitchell, H. (Brentlord and Chiswick)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Moreing, A. C.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Gledhill, G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Munro, P.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Nall, Sir J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Butcher, H. W.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Carver, Major W. H.
Crimston, R. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Cary, R. A.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Perkins, W. F. D


Cayzer, Sir H. F. (Portsmouth, S.)
Hambro, A. V.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hannah, I. C.
Petherick, M.


Channon, H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Harbord, A.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Christie, J. A.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Porritt, R. W.


Clarke, Lt.-Cot. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Procter, Major H. A.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Radford, E. A.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rankin, Sir R.


Conant, Captain F. J. E.
Higgs, W. F.
Radioane, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Holmes, J. S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cooper, Rt. He. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Hopkinson, A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cranborne, Viscount
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hudson. R. S. (Southport)
Rowlands, G.


Crooke, J. S.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Keeling, E. H.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cross, R. H.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Crossley, A. C.
Kimball, L.
Samuel, M. F. A.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Scott, Lord William


Cruddas, Col. B.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Lees-Jones, J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


De Chair, S. S.
Levy, T.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


De la Bère, R.
Lewis, O.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Dodd, J. S.
Lloyd, G. W.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)




Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Torten, R. H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Spens. W. P.
Wakefield, W. W.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Warrender, Sir V.
Wise, A. R.


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M F.
Waterhouse, Captain C.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Tasker, Sir R. I.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Thomson, Sir J. D W.
Wells, S. R.



Titohfield, Marquess of
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tree, A. R. L. F.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Major




Sir James Edmondson.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D, (Barnstaple)
Griffiths. G. A. (Hemsworth)
Owen, Major G.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Paling, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hayday, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Benson, G.
Hopkin, D.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sexton, T. M.


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Shinwell, E.


Chater, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Short, A.


Cluse, W. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Silverman, S. S.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dalton, H.
Lee, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dobbie, W.
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n.le-Sp'ng)


Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)
Lunn, W.
Taylor, R. J, (Morpeth)


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Maclean, N.
Viant, S. P.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Watkins, F. C.


Foot, D. M.
Marshall, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Gallacher, W.
Mathers, G.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Messer, F.
Westwood, J.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Milner, Major J.
White, H. Graham


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Muff, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Grenfell, D. R.
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.


Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Expenses payable out of moneys provided by Parliament.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: I would like to know whether this Clause covers compensation to volunteers who are called out to assist in air-raid precautions practices. Most of these volunteers will be workers in the localities, many of them with wives and families and other obligations, and I want to know whose liability it will be if anything should happen to them during their period of training. I can quite imagine that in the circumstances of a black-out, with these volunteers going round the streets, serious accidents may occur to some of them. Will they have to bear the cost of that themselves, or will the local authority have to bear it? I should like some definite assurance on this matter, because if there is nothing in the

Bill to cover these people, I fear that when you ask for volunteers, many of these workers will say, "Who is covering me, if anything happens to me during the preparations for resisting a hostile attack from the air?" I think that assistance rendered before an air raid ought to be taken into consideration as well as assistance during an air raid, and I think the Government ought to accept the responsibility for paying compensation to any volunteer who takes part in practice work of this nature and suffers injury.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Hayday: I was going to raise this point under the next Clause, where I thought it would be more appropriate, but if it is in order to mention it here, I will do so. There is an Amendment on the Paper, with which my name is associated, to Clause 8, and if that is not to be called, I would like to have an opportunity of mentioning the matter if it is relevant on this Clause.

The Chairman: The Amendment to which the hon. Member refers is certainly out of order, because it would go beyond the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Hayday: I wish, therefore, to support the point put forward by my hon. Friend. I believe that during the Great War very special arrangements were made in relation to merchant seamen with regard to compensation and for loss of effects due to enemy action, and I see no reason why there should not be some special arrangements made here, either by insurance or by the State undertaking the liability, perhaps jointly with the local authority, in relation to workmen and enrolled volunteers. There are two distinct classes. There is the citizen who becomes an enrolled volunteer, ready to give his services under conditions of actual warfare in the form of an air raid, and running very special risks. I do not think we should call upon such volunteers to run those grave risks. They may not all be males. There may be females rendering first-aid services under conditions tantamount to being actually on a battlefield. Their risks will be quite as great, and if there is to be no provision made for them, it certainly appears to me that it will be a deterrent and that it may also cause some anxiety.
In relation to the workmen, I can quite conceive, if unfortunately such a set of circumstances did arise that your great electricity undertakings, your gas works, gas mains, water mains, and so on were damaged, that workmen would be called out to deal with these matters, again in circumstances where there would be no ordinary, but rather extraordinary, risks run. I would like the Under-Secretary of State to give us some assurance that steps will be taken in such circumstances to give protection in the form of compensation.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: The position in this matter is that my right hon. Friend, as the hon. Member doubtless knows, received a deputation from the Trades Union Congress some time ago in regard to a good many matters about these volunteers. The Committee will appreciate that it is our desire to settle these new problems arising in regard to these services by agreement with all the chief interests concerned, but the Trades Union Congress did want to have

a further meeting with regard to the question of compensation, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman is voicing that point of view this evening. The Government take the view that any scheme of peace-time training of personnel for public air-raid precautions services, whether volunteers or volunteer employés of local authorities, must make adequate provision for compensation in the event of death or injury. Such provision has already been included in many of the arrangements that have been made up to the present. Now however that training for air-raid precautions is being more widely adopted, the measures hitherto in force will have to be made more comprehensive, and that will involve the formulation of a general scheme setting out the basis on which compensation will be paid. The methods and machinery for dealing with compensation will require further consideration. For example, it might be found desirable to deal with the matter by means of insurance policies, the premiums on which would, of course, reckon as approved for payment. On the other hand, it might be decided that it would be better that the Exchequer should assume the liability for payment. Whichever method is adopted, however, the Committee can rest assured that arrangements will be made to provide adequate compensation for members of public air-raid precautions services undergoing peace-time training.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: We welcome that very important announcement, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten me on one point, namely, whether, for the purposes of the financial provision to which he has just referred, namely the payment of compensation, it will be necessary to have any Supplementary Estimate, or whether such provision is contained in this Clause.

Sir Arthur Salter: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, did I understand him to say that the Government are considering abrogating one of the main, fundamental principles of British finance, namely, that public risks should be taken without insurance by the public funds? If so, it seems to me to be a very serious thing indeed.

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of the point to which the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) has referred with regard to the principle of public risk. He may have noticed that I


indicated that it may well be that the Exchequer would bear these liabilities. That is very much in the mind of the Government, although the position is slightly different, having regard to the fact that at present it is the liability of local authorities.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: This is a most important point. My point is whether financial provision is contained in this Clause to enable the Government to prepare compensation schemes and finance such schemes. The reason that I put the point is because you, Sir Dennis, have made it clear that an Amendment on the Order Paper which provides for the payment of compensation in respect of the death or injury of any person in the course of his employment in these duties or in the case of an enrolled volunteer in connection with any air-raid precaution schemes, is invalid because it does not come within the scope of the Financial Resolution. Accepting your Ruling, as we must, and obviously it must be accepted by the Government equally, I press my point on the Under-Secretary, namely, that if it is out of order within the terms of the Financial Resolution to provide compensation, then no provision for compensation exists in this Clause, and I would ask him how such financial provision is to be provided at a later date. Is it to be through the medium of a Supplementary Estimate or in what other way?

Mr. Lloyd: I am advised that, as regards one way of dealing with this, we can do all that we wish to do under the Act. If it is a question of approving this expenditure for grant, that is quite clearly and obviously dealt with.

Mr. Shinwell: Approving expenditure for grant is quite different from financing a compensation scheme. No compensation scheme is of the least value unless it is fortified by financial provision. You have made it clear, Sir Dennis, that the Amendment in the name of some of my hon. Friends is out of order. Then how can the Under-Secretary maintain that provision is contained in the Bill to enable the Government to provide and finance compensation schemes? I am not clear about it. Perhaps I had better put it as a point of Order, namely, whether the Under-Secretary on behalf of the Government is entitled to maintain

that such financial provision is embodied in the Act, in face of the fact that you have ruled that Amendment out of order.

The Chairman: The question as to what will be the meaning of this Bill if and when it becomes an Act and the question of my Ruling, are two different things. I have no doubt whatever on the Ruling I have given in regard to the Amendment, but if the Bill in its present form becomes an Act it will be for authorities other than myself to decide what is the meaning of the Act.

Mr. Shinweil: My contention is that financial provision for compensation schemes is expressly excluded. If it is not expressly excluded, why is it that the Amendment in question is not accepted by the Chair? I would ask the Under-Secretary to make the point much clearer than he has done, otherwise there will be doubt in the minds of the enrolled volunteers and those associated with such schemes as to whether in the event of death or injury compensation is to be provided.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: It is a great pity that when we are involved in these legal points we have not the assistance of either of the Law Officers of the Crown. It is true that the Solicitor-General described himself as a make-weight, by which I suppose he meant that he was trying to bring the Under-Secretary up to a reasonable standard of weight for this purpose. We have, however, the presence of the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), and I am sure that he desires to assist the Committee in every way that he can. I should like to put this point to the Under-Secretary. Where these so-called volunteers are the employés of a local authority and they incur injury arising out of and in the course of their duties, I take it that there is little doubt that they will be entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, although I am not saying that it is adequate; but when we come to a volunteer who is not a servant of a local authority and he incurs injury in the course of his duty, what legal claim has he for compensation for injury, or what claim has his widow if his death occurs in the course of his training or work as a volunteer, he having voluntarily submitted himself to discipline?
Has the Under-Secretary any statement that he can make in regard to those volunteers who are outside the service of a local authority? Will compensation to them be regarded by the State as ranking for grant to be deferred out of the moneys provided under this Clause? Once we get into a state where really difficult practices are being carried through by the volunteers, it will be essential that some provision should be made for them, seeing that many of them will be people of small means who cannot afford to lose any time through illness, if they are to give up some of their time to carry through some of the practices that will be required.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Hayday: I was inclined to be satisfied with what the Under-Secretary said, particularly in view of his statement with regard to the Trades Union Congress representatives. Whatever other difficulties there may be, my hon. Friends are capable of dealing with them, but I think it is clear that there can be no separation of the enrolled volunteer from the workman definitely engaged in the circumstances mentioned. Such workman has no contract of service and it is very questionable whether ordinary workmen's compensation would apply to him. I hope that hon. Members will not believe that workmen are safeguarded and that it is only desirable that there should be some safeguard for enrolled volunteers. The persons called upon to perform these tasks in the circumstances that may arise should be specially and adequately covered by compensation. I do not fall out with my hon. Friends who say that they cannot understand how it is that the Amendment to make financial provision in the Bill was ruled out, and yet on the other hand an undertaking should be given to that effect by the Under-Secretary. What the legal difficulties are I do not presume to know, but we urge that special protection should be given by way of assurance definitely settled with regard to those called upon to perform certain tasks in the circumstances mentioned.

Mr. Lloyd: I should say at once that there is no intention whatever, as I think my statement made clear, to make any separation between volunteers and the employés of local authorities. With re-

gard to the other point, I am advised that this matter is amply safeguarded, and that complete powers exist to deal with claims to compensation.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Magnay: There ought to be no dubiety on this point. I was told by the chief constable of Gateshead recently that within three weeks there had been 800 volunteers in that borough—an amazing result. I view with some alarm the feelings of volunteers throughout the country, numbering, I imagine, thousands of men and possibly women too, in regard to what the Government are prepared to do in the way of adequate compensation. "Adequate" is a comparative term and what would be considered adequate by one, might not be considered adequate by another. I suggest that this Clause refers only to expenses payable out of moneys provided by Parliament. I do not think any actuary in the country could contemplate what compensation would be required in the event of an air raid. It is beyond the power of any permanent official, however clever or experienced, to say what amount would be required to meet "adequately," to use the word of the Under-Secretary himself, the compensation payable in the event of an air raid. This Committee should say, once and for all, that adequate provision will be made for this matter. I suggest again that the Clause has reference only to expenses payable out of moneys provided by Parliament, and that expenses and compensation cannot mean the same thing. This is a serious matter. It would be beyond the power of any insurance company or pool of insurance companies to undertake this liability. It is a matter for the Exchequer and the Exchequer alone, with the backing of the national finances behind it. I desire the Bill to pass, but I suggest that the Government ought to reconsider this matter and give us some idea of the amount of compensation that would be required. In my opinion it would be huge.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Ritson: I am very anxious about this matter, because I was one of those who volunteered to help women and children during those terrible times that we had on the North-East coast in the late War. Working along with me was a most respected citizen of Sunderland. He was killed—I had left him only three minutes


before he met his death—and the maximum compensation payable to his widow was £30. If it gets abroad that this is the kind of compensation that is to be expected, it will have a very serious effect. In the case to which I refer nearly every lawyer in the North of England tried to get that pension increased, but without success. If a man is killed performing services of this kind in a time of war and his widow is left with a pension of £30, it is a very serious matter. She would be as well off with the Old Age pension. That is why we ask that there should be a definite statement on the subject from that Box. I understand that in my own town hundreds have volunteered, and they will certainly expect that compensation on different lines from that given in the case I have mentioned, will be available in any cases which may occur.

10.11 p.m.

Sir Arnold Wilson: I suggest that there are two distinct questions involved here. The first is that of the compensation which may be claimed or payable in respect of accidents occurring during practice and not during war. The second, which is quite independent, is that of the amount of compensation which may be claimed after war has broken out. In that case, the compensation will probably be covered not by Statute, but by Royal Warrant, as in the case of the armed forces of the Crown and that could be passed through all its stages in a very short time. Meantime, as a former member of His Majesty's armed forces, I hope this Committee will not ask the Government to grant larger pensions or compensation in cases of civilians accidentally killed or injured during an air raid, than they would grant to the widows or dependants of men on active service who are serving the country in an identical capacity. The proper solution, I suggest, would be that an undertaking should be given, perhaps at some subsequent date, that anybody killed in the service of the Crown or of the local authorities in connection with air raids, should have not less favourable treatment than that which would be accorded to people of similar rank and status in the armed forces of the Crown at the time; and that the Workmen's Compensation Act should apply to volunteers or servants of local authorities in the case of accidents which occur during practice.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: The hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) put forward the plea which many of us here have been making, that some definite words should be placed in the Bill giving a guarantee in regard to compensation for injuries in these cases. I warned the Under-Secretary in my own humble way, that this question ought not to be treated as something inferior and that this service should not be regarded as a third-rate service compared with front-line service. Those who volunteer for this duty are just as much front-line fighters as any other section of the community. The probability is that in many areas local authorities will make use of unemployed men who have, unfortunately for themselves, the time at their disposal for this work. On what basis are these men to assume that their compensation will be fixed? Will it be based on their unemployment benefit? Then there is the case of ex-service men who have been wounded in previous wars and are already receiving pensions. Many of them, I take it, will be employed in this work. If they receive further injuries in the course of that work, will their pensions be taken into account in fixing compensation? There ought to be some guarantee. I suggest again that the Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend have been looking upon this important question of air-raid precautions as a third-rate question. They look upon men in the front line as coming first, upon those in munition work as coming second, and upon air-raid precaution volunteers as coming third. That should not be, and the people who undertake this work should receive some guarantee from the Government. It will seriously retard the flow of volunteers and cause a damping of enthusiasm if the guarantee is not forthcoming on this Clause. My hon. Friends cannot see their way to support a Clause which gives no adequate provision to those people who are giving voluntary service.

10.15 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: We are really getting into a most fantastic situation over this Bill. Clause 8 gives power to the Secretary of State to make regulations for the purposes of Clause 7, and we have been told by you, Sir—and I respectfully agree—that an Amendment which deals with compensation cannot he moved


because it is outside the Financial Resolution. The terms of the Financial Resolution show clearly that it is outside. That Resolution was in this form:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to secure that precautions shall be taken with a view to the protection of persons and property from injury or damage in the event of hostile attack from the air, it is expedient to provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to defray—
(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in the general superintendence and direction of measures taken under the said Act, or in provicing such services and training such persons and acquiring such equipment, appliances, and other material as he considers it necessary to famish for the purpose of affording such protection as aforesaid; and
(b) the cost of grants to local authorities …
You have ruled that the provision of compensation does not fall within that Financial Resolution. That is to say, that there is no power in the Bill for Parliament to make any appropriation of moneys in respect of compensation to people, either volunteers or workers. From some message sent from some other place, the Under-Secretary gets up and says that he is assured it is all right. That is not a fair way of dealing with the House. It is fantastic, when the Chairman has rightly ruled that the matter cannot be discussed, for the Under-Secretary to get up, on account of what some civil servant has told him, and say, "We need not worry; it is true we cannot discuss the matter, but it is all covered in the Bill." That is a perfectly fantastic state of affairs. It is quite clear that it is not covered in the Financial Resolution, and the Government cannot under Clause 7, however much the Under-Secretary may give an undertaking to do this, that and the other, make provision under any regulations issued by the Home Secretary under Clause 8 for compensation, because it is outside the powers granted to him in this Bill. He will not be able to do so without an Amendment to the Financial Resolution or without a fresh Resolution.
We shall not be able to have a Clause introduced into the Bill or a new Bill without a new Financial Resolution, and it is not satisfactory, and will certainly not satisfy us, for the hon. Gentleman to get up and say, "I am sure it is all right." We prefer the Ruling of the Chairman to the assurance of the hon. Gentleman; and

I think the House is entitled to prefer the Ruling of its own Chairman to the assurance of some anonymous civil servant who sends a message by the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Under-Secretary as to what he thinks. This has never been thought of. Obviously that is the truth of the matter. This is a last-minute inspiration to try and get out of a difficulty. Surely it is better to face it. If the Government propose to do it, as we understand they do, let them get the machinery right by which to do it. Let them get the Bill in the proper form. If it is necessary to have a new Financial Resolution before they can introduce an Amendment, we must have it, but we cannot proceed with legislation on this basis, legislation which our Chairman tells us cannot go forward, but which some civil servant tells us can. Unless the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General is coming here to dispute your Ruling and say you are wrong, we certainly cannot be satisfied.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: It seems a little hard that after the assurance had been given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in advance of the Amendment which is being raised by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), it should be subsequently questioned so much. Further than that, a point has been raised by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) who are anxious that definite provisions for adequate compensation should be put into the Bill. I would point out that the Amendment which was put down did not ask for that, but for an assurance that it should be possible to provide the compensation. Let me assure the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) who, I am sure, is most anxious to be reassured on this point, that there is no question of any statement being made on the basis of a last-minute discussion of a message carried by a Parliamentary Private Secretary. The hon. and learned Member suffers from so suspicious a mind that almost any reassurance seems to him to convey some veiled threat or to be not sufficiently adequate. I am sure he will accept the assurance from me—

Sir S. Cripps: No.

Mr. Elliot: Well, wait a minute; He is so suspicious that he does not wait for


me to ask him what I wish him to accept from me. This matter has been the subject not of consultation with an anonymous civil servant but of consultation within the Cabinet, and a policy has been determined; and the assurance which is given is not the assurance of some anonymous civil servant.

Sir S. Cripps: I said that I accept absolutely the assurance of the Under-Secretary, but what we cannot accept is the statement of an anonymous civil servant that the Bill covers that assurance, in view of the Ruling which has been given from the Chair.

Mr. Elliot: I think the hon. and learned Member was so anxious to discover some hidden snare in this—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—let me finish my sentence--that he did not listen fully to the statement by the Under-Secretary. Let me do my best to reassure both him and the Committee. The question was taken further by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), who said there were two points upon which the Committee wished to be reassured—the danger to life and limb in case of war and the danger to life and limb in case of peace. The same thing was raised by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson), who said, "Do not regard this as any sort of third-line activity. This is a first-line activity in war, just as service would be in the trenches," and we all accept that. An hon. Member gave a moving account of how he had once parted from a friend doing air-raid work and how that friend was killed almost immediately afterwards.
Let me say, and it will be proof to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol and others that this has been a matter of very full consideration, that on 29th July this year the Home Secretary made a public statement about the intentions of the Government. He said that the Government would, in the event of war, lay before Parliament proposals for the payment of compensation which would cover members of public air-raid precautionary services not otherwise entitled to compensation who might be killed or injured while on duty. That is to say that in war we would regard these as on a par with the armed forces, and the Home Secretary has given an undertaking to that effect. That shows that the matter

has been in our minds. Now I come to the relatively lesser, but more immediate, question of the position in case of accident or injury taking place while—

Mr. Shinwell: May we not deal with one point at a time? He has told us that the Home Secretary intimated on 29th July the intention of the Government to provide compensation, and presumably to provide it in this Measure.

Mr. Elliot: No.

Mr. Shinwell: At all events, to provide the finance for the compensation in this Resolution. You cannot provide compensation unless you have the finance. Sufficient time has elapsed since 29th July, and in the preparation of the Bill, to permit of the inclusion of the assurance in a definite form in the Bill.

Mr. Elliot: Let me read again what my right hon. Friend said. It was that the Government would lay before Parliament
proposals for compensation which would cover members of public air-raid precautionary services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1937; col. 3296, Vol. 326.]
etc., but that was in the event of war, and that stands. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said most specifically, and I repeat it—[Interruption.] I was just about to come to this point when I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). It will be within the recollection of the Committee—

Mr. Shinwell: We are not discussing the question of compensation and the right hon. Gentleman is not making the point that he was asked to make.

Mr. Elliot: I am discussing the question of compensation in time of peace. An Amendment was put down asking for compensation to be paid. When we discussed the general question of compensation it was pointed out that these matters were still under discussion. An assurance was given, which I repeat, that any scheme of peace-time training of the personnel of air-raid precaution services, whether volunteers or employés of local authorities, must make adequate provision for compensation in the event of death or injury. I am giving the assurance. The methods and machinery for dealing with compensation will require further Consideration. It may be found desirable to deal with that by means of


insurance policies or it may be decided that it would be better that the Exchequer should accept the liability for payment on a scale to be determined. The only point was about the assurance—

Sir S. Cripps: The Government can always give an assurance about anything, but the question is, is it in the Bill? The Under-Secretary stated that he was informed that it was within the Bill, and that the powers were within the Bill. We dispute that absolutely.

Mr. Elliot: I think the OFFICIAL REPORT will make this point clear and that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) will find that the Under-Secretary said that we have powers, whether within or without the Bill. He said that we have powers, if it is done in one way, within the Bill, and if it is done in another way, outside the Bill. We have the powers to do it.

Sir S. Cripps: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us which way it can be done under the Bill?

Mr. Elliot: We are advised that the insurance policy method can be done under the Bill. We are all agreed that the Government have power to give this assurance and everybody accepts the position that a Government assurance will be carried out.

Mr. Shinwell: Oh, no.

Mr. Elliot: I think the majority of hon. Members agree that it will be carried out.

Mr. Ede: If the Whips are put on.

Mr. Elliot: All that the Chair ruled, I understand, was that the Amendment, which was on the next Clause and not on this one, was not covered by the actual words of the Financial Resolution. I am saying that, either within the Financial Resolution or within the powers of the Government outside the Bill and the Financial Resolution, the Government have the power fully and completely to implement the assurance which has been given and which I now repeat; and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee as a whole will take that view.

Sir S. Cripps: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the words in the

Financial Resolution which give the Government the power to spend money on compensation?

10.31 p.m.

Sir A. Wilson: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Section 9 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1926, which makes it clear that the Government have already the power to compensate any workman in their employment who may be injured in the course of his employment, and the Treasury have power to make regulations to cover any class or category of workmen in order to include them? These men, not being under military discipline, but being employés, being unquestionably servants but not servants of the Crown, are, as far as I can see, completely covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. These people will not be employés of the Government. If they are employés at all, they will be employés of local authorities. A great number of them will be volunteers, and not employés, and not one of these will have any conceivable claim under any Workmen's Compensation Act.

Sir A. Wilson: If they are employés of local authorities, they are equally covered as regards workmen's compensation.

Mr. Elliot: I was asked what were the words in the Financial Resolution. I will take the words:
any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in the general superintendence and direction of measures taken under the said Act or in providing such services and training such persons …
shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament. Surely, that is a very wide power.

10.33 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: That has been held by the Chairman of this Committee not to be wide enough to cover the provision of compensation in case of death or injury suffered by any person in the course of his employment or as an enrolled volunteer in the discharge of his duties in connection with an air-raid precaution scheme. As far as the Committee is at the moment discussing the matter, that is the Ruling of the Chair, and, therefore, the Ruling of the House. How can the right hon. Gentleman now say that the words include that which the Chairman has said they do not include?

The Chairman: I ought, perhaps, to interpose a word upon that. My Ruling certainly would not go so far as to say that under this Bill, if and when it becomes an Act, the Government or a local authority could not enter into terms of employment which under the existing law would require insurance against injury to the employé.

Sir S. Cripps: May I point out to you that the Amendment which would have been moved on the next Clause, if there had been power to make regulations on the matter, deals with:
the provision of compensation in respect of the death or injury of any person in the course of his employment or, in the case of an enrolled volunteer, in the discharge of his duties in connection with any air-raid precautions scheme.
The undertaking that has been given by the Government covers both these classes. It is suggested, though I respectfully dissent from the suggestion, that the ordinary workman would be covered, apart from this Act for this special kind of risk, but that would not in the least give the Government power to carry out the undertaking they have given, because the enrolled volunteers would still have to be dealt with; and there is, as I understand the Ruling of the Chair, now amplified by you, Sir Dennis, no power under the Financial Resolution to expend money upon compensation for enrolled volunteers if they meet with accidents or death in the course of their duties in connection with air-raid precaution schemes. We can accept the assurance which the Government desire to give, but what we are pointing out is that they have no power to give it. They must have power under this Bill to do it, unless we have another Bill which is subsequently to give them the power to do it. It is no good the Government giving the assurance that they will do something unless they have the power to do it. We want them to have the power, but they have not got it.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: At any rate we are all agreed that we desire the Government to have this power. The hon. and learned Member said that if the Government have not the power to do it under this Bill there is no other way to do it, except by additional legislation. It will be within the recollection of the House that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said it might be decided that it would be better for

the Exchequer to assume responsibility for payments, on a scale to be determined. That would be done on an Estimate for the Home Office.

Mr. Shinwell: That is precisely the point I put to the hon. Gentleman opposite: whether provision was contained in the Bill, or whether it would be necessary to come forward at a later stage with a Supplementary Estimate? The hon. Gentleman said, quite definitely, that a Supplementary Estimate would not be required because all the provisions were contained in the Bill.

Mr. Elliot: Surely we are now on a very small point, which should not require more than a word or two of explanation. If you put it in the Estimates, you do not need to put it in Supplementary Estimates. If we decided to do it, either under the Bill or by a Vote under Supplementary Estimates, it would be all the same. It is not denied that we can do it.

Sir S. Cripps: I certainly deny it. You must have power to make the Regulations. That is the object of Clause 8 of this Act. Merely by putting provision for a scheme into a Supplementary Estimate, you do not empower the Home Office to bring in a scheme; and there is no power under this Bill at present to bring into force any compensation scheme.

Mr. Elliot: It seems to me a somewhat academic discussion, because we are all agreed as to what we desire to be done. The Government has given an undertaking that it will be done. The question is, whether it can be done under this or whether further powers will have to be taken. It is admitted by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that if it cannot be done as the words stand now, there is no machinery by which it can be done. We want to pass this Clause. We believe it can be done under the powers the Government have. If it cannot be done, I give an undertaking that we will come down to the House and get the power. Whether it can be done under these powers can only be resolved when the Act is on the Statute Book. I can only say that I have greater confidence in my advisers than in the advice of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or the Chairman!"] I am only discussing the hon. and learned Member for


East Bristol. The Chairman has given a Ruling. Since we agree that it ought to be done, since we agree that there are powers that go some of the way, and which the Government say go all of the way, I think we ought to conclude this discussion.

Sir S. Cripps: We are quite prepared to do so. If the Under-Secretary had given this undertaking at the beginning we should have been satisfied. Now that the Minister has given the undertaking we are quite satisfied.

CLAUSE 8.—(Regulations and orders by the Secretary of State.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.40 p.m.

Dr. Guest: I want to raise a very practical and rather important point on this Clause with regard to the purchase of materials and appliances by local authorities, who will be required, under these schemes, to buy numerous appliances and materials. How are they to obtain them, and is there to be any standard price fixed for these articles, and any guarantee of the standard of quality of the articles? I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State should lay down a standard of quality for the articles purchased by local authorities, and that there should also be a standard available for articles sold for the use of private individuals for making their gas-proof rooms. If you do not have a standard of quality and a standard of price, there will be a tremendous amount of profiteering in this kind of business, and bad quality articles will be used. I suggest that a practical way would be to set up a standard of quality of material for gas-proofing and say that the firms supplying articles of that quality shall have a national mark, and that those who do not rise to that quality shall not have the national mark. That would give an opportunity that would be useful and good both for local authorities and private individuals, and exercise a control over prices. This is a very important point, and it will mean a very large amount of money one way or another whether your prices are reasonable or exaggerated.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is an important point, and I can only tell him, as I think he is aware, that a great many of these articles will be standardised.

Dr. Guest: I was not aware of that.

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the hon. Member will agree that the question of prices is another and very difficult side of the question, as is also the question of the standardisation of the quality of goods to be supplied to private individuals. On the question of the respirator, there is the machinery of the Home Office mark, the scheme of which is that if respirators reach a certain standard of quality, they are entitled to have the Home Office mark affixed to them, which will give the public a guarantee of quality. It is not easy to apply that procedure to all the materials under consideration, but I think that with regard to minor materials such as adhesive tape and cellophane and other things it will be possible to apply it.

CLAUSE 9.—(Interpretation.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.44 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the interpretation which, I understand, is now put upon Clause 5, it is intended to retain this definition of "local authority"? As I understand it—I may be wrong—this definition of "local authority" would include a parish council as being a local authority for whose expenses a precept may be issued for the levying of a rate. That means to say that under Clause 5 a parish council would be given authority to incur any expenditure for the purpose of making these provisions. Surely, if this wide power is to be given under Clause 5, it is desirable that the definition of "local authority" in this Clause should be limited to those local authorities who can make schemes, otherwise, you are going to get all sorts of councils who will want to make their own arrangements and who have no power to submit schemes. If you are to have a co-related inter-connected scheme for the whole of the country it ought to be local authorities who can make schemes and


get their expenditure approved, otherwise you will give other councils a chance of incurring expenditure, indeed, encourage them to do work on air-raid schemes. You clearly do not want them to do this, because you have designated the particular authorities for this purpose.

10.46 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: The interpretation Clause includes such authorities as have power to levy a rate, say, for roads and sewers, and who can issue a precept for such expenditure and obtain contributions in the form of rates. Some of these authorities will make air-raid precautions without presenting any definite scheme. They are not included for the purposes of Clauses r and 2 as authorities which can formulate schemes. I will look into the point put by the hon. and learned Member. I think it is desirable that we should have a definition which is fairly wide, but I am not quite sure that it is necessary to have it as wide as it is in the Bill. The matter shall be looked into.

Sir S. Cripps: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member. I was not dealing with the authorities to which he has referred, but I thought that the definition of a local authority should be coterminous with those local authorities who may send up air-raid schemes; otherwise there will be overlapping. The county council will send up their scheme, and a rural council will send up theirs. There will be chaos.

The Solicitor-General: I will look into the matter.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I should like to know whether under the Clause it is clear that any local authority within the definition may incur expenditure for air-raid precautions which is not approved, but which is by Clause 5 lawful, and if that is so, will the Solicitor-General tell us what kind of expenditure by a local authority which has a right to make a scheme is made lawful under Clause 5 without being approved expenditure under Clause 6 or under this Clause? In other words, what kind of expenditure is it possible for a scheme-making authority to incur which is at the same time reasonable and lawful; bat not a part of the expenditure

approved for these general purposes by the Home Office?

10.50 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member is quite right in saying that by Clause 5 it is possible for a local authority to incur expenditure which has not been approved, but there is machinery to deal with the matter. But as regards his second point, the only kind of expenditure by a scheme-making authority that I can think of which is legal under Clause 5, but which does not rank for a grant, is the kind of expenditure which has been mentioned, namely, expenditure incurred before the passing of the Act; and for such expenditure it would be necessary to have words of this kind in, whether it is incurred in pursuance of an air-raid precaution scheme or not, because before the passing of the Act there can be no question of any scheme, and therefore any expenditure incurred before the passing of the Act is not expenditure which could be said to be incurred under an air-raid precaution scheme. That is the only kind of expenditure which I can think of which would be authorised by a local authority which is a scheme-making authority.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not quite right there, is he? Supposing in such a scheme such an authority put out proposals A, B and C. Proposal A was turned down by the Secretary and could not be part of the scheme. It would be able to spend money on A.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. It might then have legal authority for spending the money on A in some cases.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: What then is the purpose of passing legislation to make legal what, without this legislation, was not legal, that is to say, the expenditure of money on air-raid precaution schemes which is so unreasonable as to disqualify for any share in the grant that the Government make? I am afraid I cannot accept the explanation that it is only expenditure incurred before. If you needed special words in order to cover expenditure incurred by forward-looking authorities before the enactment of this Measure, then you have amply provided by Subsection (2) of Clause 5. You did not


need the other, and if you did need the other you would not have said "what is incurred," but you would have said, "what has been incurred." If you meant something other than past expenditure, then it is really the intention of the Government to say in the same Measure, "We will agree an approved scheme with you. You will do everything that is reasonable, and when you have done that we will bear the brunt of the cost, and you will bear some small share; but we will also in the same Measure pass new legislation in order to enable you to take precautions which are not legal, which we would not sanction, which we do not approve, and which you may carry out at your own expense." What is the purpose of doing that?

CLAUSE 10.—(Application to Scotland.)

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 8, line 14, at the end, to insert:
Provided that any small burgh affected shall be taken into consultation in the preparation of any such scheme and in the apportionment and allocation of any such expenditure and, in default of agreement, such small burgh shall have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State whose decision shall be final.
I would point out a very serious cause of complaint on the part of the local authorities at the amount of legislation passed by this House, known as legislation by reference. This Clause is a typical case of legislation by reference. There is, first of all, a reference to a previous Clause of the Bill in its application to England for the purpose of getting a somewhat similar application to Scotland, which is in accordance with Scots law. The second case of legislation by reference in this Clause is the fact that there is reference to three Acts of Parliament. There is the 1929 Act, there is an Act that is referred to as the 1933 Act, and there is even an Act that was passed in 1891. I suggest that when those Acts were placed upon the Statute Book, not a single person responsible for getting them through the House had any idea that they would be referred to in the type of Bill which we are now discussing in its application to Scotland.
I wish particularly to draw attention to the fact that unless the Amendment is

accepted, it will not be possible to get that smooth working in the administration of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, which is so necessary in dealing with a problem of this nature. The duty will devolve upon county councils and large burghs to present schemes for the consideration and approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland. If I understand the Bill rightly, a small burgh may present a scheme for the approval and consideration of the Secretary of State. But when it is a matter of a scheme covering both a small burgh and a section of the county surrounding it, while the air-raid precautions schemes may require the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland, when it comes to allocating the expense in connection with the scheme, if the small burgh is dissatisfied with the allocation, there will be no appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and there may be nothing but friction in the relationship between the small burgh and the county.
When my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) moved an Amendment in the interests of smooth working in the City of London, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, after paying a tribute to the way in which the negotiations had been carried out by the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs, made an appeal for the continuation of successful consultation between these administrative bodies. I am asking that this Amendment should be accepted so that there may be not only that successful consultation between small burghs and county councils, but no friction, or at least a minimum of friction, arising from the fact that the allocation of expenses is left solely under the control of the county councils. The Amendment reads:
Provided that any small burgh affected shall be taken into consultation in the preparation of any such scheme
I know that I shall probably be told that Clause 1 of the Bill makes provision for that, but the Amendment goes further when it says:
and in the apportionment and allocation of any such expenditure and, in default of agreement, such small burgh shall have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State whose decision shall be final.
I hope that in the interests of harmonious and speedy work, which is absolutely necessary in dealing with this problem, the Amendment will be accepted, or at least, if the words which we suggest are


not accepted, that the principle will be accepted. If it is not possible for the Government to meet us by accepting the Amendment, but if we can get an assurance that, in order to have a fair deal between the small burghs and the county councils, consideration will be given to this matter between now and the Report stage, I shall be inclined to advise my hon. Friends not to press this Amendment to a Division. It is a serious problem for these small burghs. Let me give three typical illustrations of how it may be necessary for a county council to prepare a scheme to safeguard the people within the county and at the same time call for exceptional circumstances in dealing with the problem within a small burgh. In my own division I have a small burgh, Grangemouth, with large docks, but the county council have the right to prepare a scheme, I admit in consultation with the small burgh, but they may desire to take in a large area of Grangemouth because of the docks there, and then, when the scheme is approved of by the Secretary of State for Scotland, they will be entitled, by my reading of the Bill, to allocate the expenses as between the area of the county for which special precautions are to be taken and the burgh in which is the necessity for those special precautions being taken, and as there is no appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland in the event of disagreement as to the allocation of those costs, I can foresee all kinds of difficulties and friction arising.
Now let me give another typical illustration, namely, the burgh of Buckhaven, which has the Buckhaven docks within its area. There you get a similar problem, but there is an even worse instance of how special precautions may have to be made and an unfair allocation of the expenditure by the county council. Take the case of South Queensferry, adjacent to the Forth Bridge, or the case of Inverkeithing, also adjacent to the Forth Bridge. Special allocations may require to be made by the counties on both sides of the Forth, because of the need for special precautions. I hope that, if there is any scheme to be prepared, there will be full consultation and, secondly, in the allocation of expenses arising out of these schemes, that if there is any feeling of injustice on the part of the small burghs, they shall have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I think I can give the hon. Member the assurances which he desires. In the first part of his Amendment he asks that there should be provision for consultation with small burghs in the preparation of any schemes that are made. I think that is completely covered by Clause 1 (2, a) as interpreted for Scotland. That does provide that consultations shall be held with the small burghs. The second point is that there should be consultation about the apportionment and allocation of any such expenditure. So far as concerns the preparation of schemes, the small burghs will already have been consulted; but furthermore, all the schemes will require to be submitted to the Secretary of State—that is, in fact, right of appeal—who may approve them with or without modification, so that I think that, if the proposed Amendment has reference to the areas to which the expenditure is to be apportioned and allocated, the point is covered. These are rather highly technical matters, and these application Clauses always raise certain questions as to interpretation, and if the Committee desire further consideration, I will look into the matter between now and the Report stage. I hope that with those two assurances, first, that I think it is covered and secondly that I will look into it further, the hon. Member will implement the tentative promise which I think he made at the end of his speech that he would not press the Amendment.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. McLean Watson: I welcome the assurance that we have been given by the right hon. Gentleman, that this matter will be further looked into, but I would like to ask how the Secretary of State intends to consult the small burghs. Does he intend to consult them through the county council which will be responsible for the framing of the scheme, or is it his intention to consult the town councils of these small burghs which is an entirely different thing? I admit that the small burghs have representation on the county councils, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman intends to consult them directly, and not through county councils both with regard to the schemes and the allocation of expenditure. As the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, the relations between the small burghs and the


counties in Scotland have not been very harmonious since the passing of the Act of 1929. There is a considerable amount of friction between them. Under this Measure it is proposed that the county councils shall frame the schemes and I suppose the small burghs will have to be satisfied with the representation they have on the county councils as regards consultation and discussion on the allocation of the expenses. But I hope they will be consulted directly by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to these schemes and the expenses which will have to be shared between them and the county councils.
Like my hon. Friend who spoke earlier, I am particularly interested in this matter, because the county from which I come is as keenly interested in the question of air-raid precautions as any other part of Scotland. In my constituency is the dockyard of Rosyth, and we may depend upon it that if ever there is an air raid in Scotland, that is one of the first points that will be attacked. As has already been pointed out there is also in that neighbourhood the Forth Bridge, and one can well imagine that that is a point which would readily be attacked by an enemy seeking to cut the communications between the North and the South of Scotland. In the last war the only Zeppelin that visited Scotland got as far as the Forth Bridge. They will not be long about getting to the Forth Bridge if there is another war. Therefore, the area which I represent is particularly involved in these schemes. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman makes up his mind to implement the assurance he has given, these matters will be discussed directly with the small burghs and not through their representatives on the county councils.

Mr. Elliot: The county councils will consult with the small burghs in drawing up the scheme. Then the Secretary of State has to approve of the scheme. When he is deciding whether to approve of the scheme or not, he will of course, consider the representations made to him and from what I know of the small burghs they will certainly make their representations directly and not through the county councils.

Mr. Westwood: In view of the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman

that there will be consultation in the framing of the schemes between the county councils and the small burghs and the second assurance that between now and the Report stage, he will consult with those of us who are interested in the question as to whether there is adequate safeguard on the financial side, we do not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, at the end, to insert:
(9) A county or a town council may acquire land for the purposes of their powers and duties under this Act, and, where they are unable to acquire by agreement on terms which are in their opinion reasonable any land which is required for such purposes, they may purchase that land compulsorily by means of an order made by them and confirmed by the Secretary of State, and the following provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1932, namely: Part III of the First Schedule, Part I of the Third Schedule (except paragraph 2 and subparagraph (iii) of paragraph 3), and paragraph 4 (except head (b) of sub-paragraph (i)) of Part II of that Schedule, shall apply to any such order, subject to the following and any other necessary modifications—
(i) for references to the Department of Health for Scotland and to the responsible authority there shall be substituted, respectively, references to the Secretary of State and to the county or town council; and
(ii) anything which has to be prescribed shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State:
Provided that—
(i) nothing in this Sub-section shall authorise the compulsory acquisition of any land which is the site of an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest, or which belongs to any local authority, or to any statutory undertakers within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1932; and
(ii) where any land proposed to be acquired by means of a compulsory purchase order under this Sub-section is situate within such distance as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Commissioners of Works, from any of the royal palaces or parks, the county or town council shall communicate with the Commissioners of Works and the Secretary of State shall, before confirming the order, take into consideration any recommendation received from the Commissioners of Works with reference to the order.
(10) A county or town council shall have power to borrow for any purpose of this Act to which capital is properly applicable, and the provisions of Section twenty-three of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, shall apply to the power hereby conferred. Any


sums borrowed in pursuance of this Subsection shall be repaid within such period as the Secretary of State may fix.
This Amendment is merely to confer on county councils the powers to acquire land, equivalent to the powers which are proposed in the case of England and Wales in the proposed New Clause, about compulsory purchase of land, which stands later on the Paper. I take it there will not be any objection to the Amendment.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: The provisions in the Bill relating to Scotland need speeding up. Scotland has been completely neglected by the Government so far as these schemes are concerned, and it is practically defenceless. I appeal to the Secretary of State to use his influence and eloquence to see that air defence units and air-raid precaution schemes are adequately provided for Scotland as an important supply base.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: Having had to deal with land owners in connection with acquiring land for housing, I know what difficulties they can put in the way and how they can cause interminable delay. I should like to have an assurance that the local authorities will not have to go through the ordinary procedure for compulsory acquisition of land, but that as soon as the Secretary of State has approved a scheme a local authority will be able to acquire land by Order without delay. Then they can settle the question of payment for the land afterwards.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I am sure the hon. Member will be satisfied with the fact that the procedure under which we shall operate is the same as that laid down in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1932, the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, and the Air Navigation Act, 1936. We are not proposing any new procedure, and we think that proposed is sufficiently expeditious. Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Provisions as to Northern Ireland).

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 9, line 28, to leave out from the beginning, to "be," in line 32, and to insert

For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that it is and always has been within the functions of the Government of Northern Ireland to secure that in Northern Ireland precautions shall, as in other parts of the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend is much obliged to my hon. Friends for drawing his attention the desirability of giving further consideration to this Clause. He has had consultations with representatives of the Government of Northern Ireland, and as a result he has put clown this and the following Amendment. They will have the effect of making clear the status within the United Kingdom of the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland in the matter to which the Bill relates. These Amendments will dispel any impression that the Clause has the effect of imposing new obligations on the Government of Northern Ireland.

11.17 p.m.

Sir Ronald Ross: I should like to thank my hon. Friend for the Amendment, which, as he has said, has been agreed with representatives of the Government of Northern Ireland, and corrects the constitutional position. I admit that I am not altogether happy as to the position under this Bill of the part of the United Kingdom from which I come. The Bill is essentially a Defence Measure. It affects civilians as well as soldiers and sailors, and it is an ancillary part of the defence of the country as a whole against air raids. As far as I can see, the burden of our local expenditure is put upon us, and it puts us in an entirely different position from any other part of the country, because the point has been taken by hon. Members opposite, and assented to on this side, that this is a national duty, the expenditure for carrying out which should come from the Treasury, and not put upon local bodies. I should say in fairness that there is this difficulty, that of course the administration of air-raid defence in Northern Ireland must come under the Government of Northern Ireland. It is normally the head of the machinery which would appropriately administer it, and therefore there is a constitutional difficulty which must be obvious to all Members. I think the Government should consider whether some block grant could be given in the way of assistance to the Northern Ireland Government in the discharge of this duty, which as regards the industrial area around Belfast is a vital matter of national defence.
I have a further question to ask regarding the allotment of equipment. When the right hon. Gentleman was moving the Second Reading of the Bill, he said there would be a certain amount of equipment in connection with air-raid defence work which would be manufactured centrally and issued. I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether he will give a general assurance to-night that Northern Ireland shall be in a no worse position as regards the free or assisted issue of that equipment than any other part of the country. I do not wish to push our claims too high, because I think that as regards a lot of places our part of the United Kingdom will probably be safer from air raids than any other, but there will be places which will need efficient and up-to-date air-raid equipment, and I ask for an assurance that our treatment shall be as generous as that of any other part of the United Kingdom.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I should not have joined in this discussion at this late hour but for the fact that the Clause does raise a somewhat unusual constitutional issue. Section 4 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, is the Section which disables the Government of Northern Ireland from passing legislation in respect of certain matters. Sub-section (2) relates to the making of peace or war
or matters arising from a state of war; or the regulation of the conduct of any portion of His Majesty's subjects during the existence of hostilities between foreign states with which His Majesty is at peace, in relation to those hostilities.
Sub-section (3) deals with the Navy, the Army, the Air Force and the Territorials. It is not often that we get these constitutional issues arising, and even if it be 11.20 I think it is important that the House should understand exactly what it is we are declaring or altering. We are declaring the law when we say that it always has been within the power of the Government of Northern Ireland to regulate the conduct of any portion of His Majesty's subjects, or rather, that it is not within their power as the Act stands, "during the existence of hostilities." I think those are the pertinent words. We ought to know exactly the law we are declaring in the Amendment, or what law we are altering. I understand that this is an agreed Clause, but

it is important to the Commons House of Parliament in Great Britain to know exactly what it is to which we have agreed.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: In a word, we are simply declaring what the state of the law is. We have gone into the question at some length with the Government of Northern Ireland, and I think that in the absence of the Home Secretary, who is the Minister who deals with Northern Ireland, we might postpone further consideration of this to a further stage of the Bill. This is an Amendment to remove doubts; it does not change the law.

Sir R. Ross: Will my right hon. Friend answer the point I put about Northern Ireland not being worse treated as regards the issue of air-raid precaution equipment than the other parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Elliot: I think it would be impossible for me to give a further assurance at the present time. Of course that point will be borne in mind, but the Home Secretary would be the proper Minister to give such an assurance.

Mr. Davidson: Have we to take it that the whole question of the status of Northern Ireland will have to be discussed before we can discuss the question of the Government's generosity?

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I have heard with astonishment the statement of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is not fair to a Committee of the Whole House that we cannot have the necessary explanations. The Under-Secretary of State, we understood until to-day, was the person in the Department who had special charge of this matter and who, on occasion, helped the Home Secretary to deal with it in public, although it was a matter that was assigned to the Under-Secretary. It is not fair that we should be told: "I am the make-weight. I do not profess to be able to deal with the subject," and for the Secretary of State for Scotland, on a constitutional point raised by one of the hon. Members for Ulster, to say that the hon. Member must wait until the Home Secretary was here. I protest against this treatment of this Committee. I hope that,


on another occasion, the Patronage Secretary, when he finds at an earlier stage of the proceedings that the Ministers who an on the Front Bench are incompetent to deal with questions raised by such simple people as the Members for Ulster, will withdraw the Measure and let us go on with something else—or let us have a night off.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 35, at the end, add:
and that the Parliament of Northern Ireland has power to make laws for such purposes.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Investigation of working of financial provisions.)

The Secretary of State shall, before the expiration of a period of three years from the passing of this Act, in consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable, cause an investigation to be made ino the working of the financial provisions of this Act with particular reference to the expense falling to be borne by local rates, and shall cause a report of the result of the investigation to be laid before Parliament.—[Mr. Elliot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is put forward in accordance with an undertaking in the course of the Second Reading Debate, which should assure its acceptance by the Committee.

Question put. and agreed to. Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Compulsory purchase of land.)

The council of any county or county borough, the common council of the City of London, and the council of any metropolitan borough or county district may purchase land compulsorily for any of the purposes of this Act by means of an order made by the council and confirmed by the Secretary of State, and the provisions of sections one hundred and sixty-one, one hundred and sixty-two, one hundred and seventy-four, and one hundred and seventy-five of the Local Government Act, 1933, and of paragraphs (a) and (c) of section one hundred and seventy-nine of that Act shall apply with respect to any such order as if for the references to

the Minister of Health there were substituted references to the Secretary of State and for the references to a local authority there were substituted references to any such council as aforesaid.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.27 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is not probable that the powers conferred by this Clause will be much required, but some local authorities made representations asking for an express provision of this character to be included in the Bill. The expression "land" includes buildings, and some of the matters for which a compulsory purchase order may be required relate to decontamination posts, first-aid stations and fire stations. County councils have the power to acquire land for any of their statutory functions, and other local authorities have power to do so for many purposes of public health; but these are not recognised for the purposes of the Air-Raid Precau tions Bill.
The method of acquisition by provisional order is very cumbrous. The Act of 1933 contains, in Section 161 a complete code for the acquisition of land by compulsory purchase, and it is proposed in this new Clause to adopt that procedure. It may not have escaped notice that we have also adopted that part of Section 179, which precludes local authorities from acquiring the property of local authorities or of public utility companies. This Clause will afford a swift method of compulsory purchase in cases where it is necessary. The method by provisional order is open to a great many exceptions with which I need not trouble the Committee. It is desired that these compulsory purchase powers should be included in the Bill for the purposes of air-raid precautions.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The Solicitor-General will recollect that he promised my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that he would consider the question of what local authorities are included in the definition Clause. This new Clause as drawn includes the council of any county district, and it may well be that a large number of county districts—in fact, all those which are not given express powers under Clause 1


to prepare schemes—will not be local authorities for the purposes of the Act when the matter has been reconsidered. I beg the Solicitor-General to undertake that the definition of "local authority" in this new Clause shall be correlated to bring it into line with any alteration that may be made in the definition Clause of the Bill.

The Solicitor-General: Certainly. If any modification is made of the definition, it will be necessary to scrutinise the one instance where the expression "local authority" is used in the new Clause.

Clause added to the Bill.

SCHEDULE.

Amendments made: In page 10, line 38, leave out "the excess," and insert: "so much of the approved expenditure as would cause the levying of a rate in excess of one penny in the pound."

In page 1, line 1, leave out "of that excess," and insert "thereof."

In line 31, leave out "the excess," and insert:
so much of the approved expenditure as would cause the levying of a rate in excess of one penny in the pound.

In line 32, leave out "of that excess," and insert "thereof."—[Mr. Lloyd.]

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed [Bill 58].

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

11.32 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It is not necessary for me to enter into any detailed description of the purpose of this Bill, but a few points require a word of explanation. Clause z authorises the advance by the Public Works Loans Commissioners of a maximum amount—on this occasion £25,000,000—for the purposes of local loans until the passing of the next Act. The Measure does not necessarily cover 12 months, but that is generally the approximate interval between the Acts. The House will recollect

that the last Act was passed in February of this year, and authorised advances to the amount of £20,000,000. It was thought that that would last for 12 months, but the housing programme has necessitated larger advances, and it is now expected that the £20,000,000 will be expended before the end of January. For that reason it is necessary for us to get the Bill through all its stages before the House rises for Christmas, in order to enable the Commissioners to go on with their work. The amount provided in this Bill is £25,000,000, and we hope and expect that it will last for the next 12 months. think the House should realise that since the beginning of 1919, up to the end of October this year, the Commissioners have made advances out of the Local Loans Fund totalling almost £375,000,000, and that no less than 80 per cent. of this has been for housing. The second Clause is in common form and directs the writing off, in accordance with usual procedure, of certain amounts set out in schedule form. In the explanatory memorandum attached to the Bill there have been certain alterations in the way the figures are set out, in order to meet representations which were made last year by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones).
The only point of special interest this year to which I would like to draw attention is Clause 3. This Clause is outside the usual routine. The Board, under the present powers, can lend to local authorities for the purpose of any work for which the council of a county, borough, district or parish is authorised to borrow, but these general powers do not enable the Board to lend for the purpose of purchase of land by local authorities, except where the purchase forms part of works that are to be carried out, as, for example, a drainage scheme or reservoir, or something of that sort. Eight instances have occurred up to date, and they are likely to become more frequent, where local authorities have had to borrow for purchase of land, and the Board have found, on investigation, that they have no power to lend. An example would be land for open spaces or recreational purposes, and, as every effort is being made to facilitate and enlarge works for recreational purposes, it is desirable that the Board should be in a position to lend money for


this purpose. The House will appreciate that local authorities have power to buy land and to borrow, but, though the Public Works Loan Commissioners are the natural lenders, they are debarred from lending. There is no change of policy. The remaining Clauses are in common form, and I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, to enable the Board to go on with their valuable work.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Benson: The Financial Secretary said that there was only one interesting point, and that that was Clause 3. He is doing an injustice to our old friend, Eymouth Harbour. For years this has invariably appeared in this Bill, with a sum to be written off. This is a melancholy reminder of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923, for Clause 2 of the Bill writes off the assets of the fund some 4,000 of loans which are not recoverable. But I hope no hon. Gentlemen are under the impression that £4,000 is the limit of our loss in the year 1936–7 under the Agricultural Credits Act. As a matter of fact, that £4,000 is a very small fraction of the loss resulting from that Act. The total loss for the year is not £4,000, but £76,000. The sum of £4,000 is borne in this Bill, and the other 72,000 is borne on the Votes of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Scottish Office.
I want to examine the policy that lies behind this very considerable and continued loss, which arises as the result of the Treasury paying the premiums which are charged on the repayment of loans under the Agricultural Credits Act at an earlier date than that for which they were stipulated. The way this provision arises is that when the money was lent under the Agricultural Credits Act, the Local Loans Commissioners had to borrow at the market rate, which was approximate to 5 per cent. They lent to the borrowers at 5 per cent., on the understanding that their loans would remain current for between 50 and 60 years. They made their borrowings permanent and they lent on the understanding that they were going to re-lend for 50 or 60 years. Since they lent, a very big drop in the rate of interest has meant that it was a great advantage to the borrowers if they could re-borrow at lower rates of interest and repay to the Local Loans Fund the sums

that they had borrowed at 5 per cent. Naturally, the Treasury pointed out that, if these repayments were made earlier than the stipulated time under the agreement, a loss was involved by the Local Loans Fund and that a premium must be paid on repayment at an earlier date than that which had been arranged. All local authorities that borrowed from the Local Loans Fund have to pay this premium, but the borrowers under the Agricultural Credits Act have the premium paid for them by the Treasury. In the last three and a half years these premiums, paid for by the Treasury and borne on the various Estimates, have amounted to something like 250,000. The policy of paying the premiums on premature repayments under the Agricultural Credits Act is an unsound one, and it will not achieve the object for which it was adopted. The object is quite a simple one. It was known perfectly well that the loans under the Agricultural Credits Act were bad loans from the point of view of other loans. It was inevitable that very heavy losses would be involved, and the Treasury, in order to mitigate those losses, decided to offer an inducement for earlier repayment by allowing the repayments to be made without the necessary premium. In theory, that is, no doubt, all right. But how does it work out?
If you examine the figures of the Local Loans Fund, you will find that there are a certain number of borrowers who are solvent and are paying their interest and their annual capital repayments, and there are others who are insolvent and are in default. The only people who can take advantage of this waiver of premiums are the solvent borrowers. The insolvent borrowers, the borrowers whose farms are mortgaged up to the hilt and who have no opportunity whatever of replacing the Local Loans mortgage by a private mortgage, cannot repay. The result is that this waiver of premium merely attracts back into the Local Loans Fund safe money in respect of which there is no danger of loss. But unsafe money, money that the Treasury aim at getting back, is not coming back. It is only safe money which is coming back, and there is no sense in paying premiums to get safe money back which we should not lose if we allowed the loans to run their full time.
These premiums, owing to the very heavy drop in the rate, amount to a very considerable figure. In the last year premature repayments amounted to £276,000, and of that sum the premium borne by the Treasury was £72,000, or 26 per cent. In the last three and a half years the premiums borne by the Treasury have amounted to £250,000, which works out at approximately 25 per cent. of the capital sum repaid. If we compare that with the actual losses not of good money, because we do not lose good money, but of bad money, we find that hitherto under the Agricultural Credits Act we have lost £44,000, which represents 28 per cent. of the capital originally loaned. What the Treasury are doing in their waiver of premiums policy is that they are paying 26 per cent. to get good money back, and on bad money their loss is 28 per cent. I suggest that that is a ridiculous policy to pursue, and that it would pay us to insist on the premium even if it reduced the rate of premature repayments practically to nil. It is only good money which takes advantage of this waiver of premium, and we shall get back good money. I suggest that this policy should be reviewed. The Treasury should review the question whether they are getting value for money by this waiver of premium. Each year loans under the Agricultural Credits Act become safer, because all loans are gradually repaying their capital. The total loans were something like £3,200,000, and of that sum £660,000 has already been paid, leaving about £2,500,000, so that we are so far as solvent borrowers are concerned in a comparatively strong position. I think it is folly to offer a 25 per cent. premium for the repayment of this comparatively safe money. I hope the Financial Secretary will look into the matter. Why should there not be a revaluation of these loans? There would be only about 900 valuations, and with the whole machinery of the Government at our disposal that would be a small matter. We are paying £70,000 in premiums which I hold is entirely unnecessary, and I think it is time the matter was looked into.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am sure I am representing the feelings of hon. Members in all parts of the House when I say how

much we welcome the return of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) to our Debates and realise that he has lost none of that vigour as a watchdog over finance which he has always shown in our discussions. I will not try to anticipate what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will say in reply. I do not know whether he will be in a position to reply to-night to the detailed points that we have raised, and if he is not so able, I hope that he will be able to give us a considered answer on the next stage of the Bill. I confess that my sympathies are more with the people who do not get an opportunity of being paid than with those who have been lucky enough to secure it.
On many occasions before when this Bill has been under discussion we have had our hopes raised by the possibility of something being done for the local authorities who borrowed at high rates of interest for a long period and who are, of course, perfectly correctly being held to their repayments over that long period. The Treasury have been able to throw out hopes recently that some relief might be given to them, and I hope that it may be possible, as time goes on, to relieve some of them from the heavy burdens they bear. I have only one thing to say about Clause 3, to which reference has been made. I can see nothing to which exception can be taken in it. The Bill is common form, with that single difference. I do not desire to delay the Bill in its passage.

11.52 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I can speak again only with the leave of the House. I do not think that hon. Members will expect me to enter into the details of the points which were raised by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) to whose speech I listened with great care and attention, as we all do when he speaks on financial matters. The point which he has made to-night sems to hinge upon whether certain loans made under the Agricultural Credits Act were or were not safe. Where loans are not very safe and there is an opportunity of receiving early repayment, we think it is often prudent to take that opportunity. The hon. Member referred on a previous occasion to a question, which I do not think he raised to-night, whether we were not rather free with our remissions of loans. As this is St. Andrews night, I


could not do better than quote the Scottish proverb:
Ye canna tak' the breeks off a Hielan'man.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Translate."] I think that proverb will be quite as well understood in the English language. There are cases where it is impossible to get the money at all, and the only thing to do is to write off the debt. I have noted the points made by the hon. Member and I will go very carefully into them. Somebody must judge whether, in point of fact, particular loans are safe or not and, when an opportunity occurs for early repayment, whether it is wise to take that repayment, even if this involves the remission of the premium normally paid by the borrower for doing so. I noticed the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about the position of the local authorities, but I cannot at present add to what I said on this subject last year. The matter is, however, not lost sight of.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Benson: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has just said that somebody must be the judge of whether repayment should be accepted or not. I would

point out that the Treasury minute lays it down quite definitely that no loan repaid under this Measure, whether safe or not, involves the remission of a premium. It is not a question of judgment. The repayment is made without any premium at all. I want the whole matter investigated.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I had in mind the whole range of policy when I said I would go carefully into the hon. Member's points.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday.—[Lieut.Colonel C. Kerr.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Four Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.